Upload README.md

README.md

@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ appropriate hedging, and whether the sources actually say what the answer claims
 
 This dataset takes the opposite approach. Every task is a realistic instruction from a practicing
 lawyer's desk, paired with an expert-authored reference answer and a **fine-grained rubric of
-weighted, binary criteria** (20–40 across the source corpus).
+weighted, binary criteria** totalling exactly 100 points per task (29–43 criteria in this sample).
 The rubric — not the reference answer — is the object of
 evaluation. That makes scoring reproducible across graders and directly convertible into
 per-dimension reward signals.
@@ -120,25 +120,36 @@ Each row is a triple-component unit:
 |---|---|---|
 | 1. Legal reasoning prompt | `prompt` | A realistic scenario requiring multi-step reasoning and professional judgment, with role, jurisdiction, and deliverable format specified |
 | 2. Golden answer | `golden_answer` | An expert-authored reference analysis (17k–38k characters in this sample) |
-| 3. Scoring rubric | `rubrics` | 20–40 categorized, weighted, binary criteria, each with the author's justification |
+| 3. Scoring rubric | `rubrics` | 29–43 categorized, weighted, binary criteria per task, positive weights totalling 100 points, each with the author's justification |
 
 ## Rubric design
 
 Criteria are binary and weighted. Positive weights reward required content; negative weights
 penalize specific failure modes (hallucinated authority, overconfident advice, missing caveats).
 
-Criteria fall into four categories, with Substance further divided into four sub-categories:
-
-| Category | Sub-category | Criteria | What it tests |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| **Substance** | Explicit requirements | 27 | Did the answer do what was literally asked? |
-| | Implicit requirements | 27 | Did it surface what a competent practitioner would raise unprompted? |
-| | Legal correctness | 21 | Is the law stated accurately? |
-| | Reasoning quality | 31 | Is the analytical path sound, not just the conclusion? |
-| **Sources & References** | — | 34 | Are cited authorities real, relevant, and correctly characterized? |
-| **Structure & Style** | — | 30 | Does it read like professional work product? |
-| **Negative Criteria** | — | 25 | Penalties for specific, anticipated failure modes |
-| **Total** | | **195** | |
+**Every task's rubric is calibrated to the same point budget.** Positive criteria total exactly
+**100 points**, allocated across the three positive categories in a fixed split:
+
+| Category | Sub-category | Point budget | Criteria | What it tests |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| **Substance** | | **65** | 108 | |
+| | Explicit requirements | | 27 | Did the answer do what was literally asked? |
+| | Implicit requirements | | 27 | Did it surface what a competent practitioner would raise unprompted? |
+| | Legal correctness | | 22 | Is the law stated accurately? |
+| | Reasoning quality | | 32 | Is the analytical path sound, not just the conclusion? |
+| **Sources & References** | — | **20** | 34 | Are cited authorities real, relevant, and correctly characterized? |
+| **Structure & Style** | — | **15** | 32 | Does it read like professional work product? |
+| **Negative Criteria** | — | *penalties* | 25 | Penalties for specific, anticipated failure modes |
+| **Total** | | **100** | **199** | |
+
+The point budget holds for all six tasks individually, not just in aggregate — so a model's raw
+score is already a percentage, and scores are directly comparable across tasks and subdomains
+despite differing criteria counts. Negative criteria sit outside the 100 points and subtract from
+the earned total, so a score can fall below zero.
+
+The criteria counts vary by task (29–43) because experts allocated the fixed budget at whatever
+granularity the material demanded — a task needing many small checks uses more `+1` criteria, one
+turning on a few decisive points uses `+5`s.
 
 The `rubric_category` field stores each of these as a single literal string. Filter on these values
 exactly:
@@ -147,8 +158,8 @@ exactly:
 `Substance Rubric - Legal correctness`, `Substance Rubric - Reasoning quality`,
 `Sources and References Rubric`, `Structure & Style Rubric`, `Negative Rubric`
 
-Weight distribution across the 195 criteria in this sample:
-`+5` (69), `+3` (70), `+1` (31), `-1` (2), `-3` (5), `-5` (18).
+Weight distribution across the 199 criteria in this sample:
+`+5` (71), `+3` (71), `+1` (32), `-1` (2), `-3` (7), `-5` (16).
 
 ## Contents
 
@@ -157,11 +168,11 @@ Six tasks, one per subdomain:
 | `task_id` | `area` | Rubric criteria | Peer review overall quality (R1 / R2) |
 |---|---|---|---|
 | 18 | Employment & Labor | 34 | 3 / 4 |
-| 40 | Intellectual Property (IP) | 40 | 4 / 4 |
+| 40 | Intellectual Property (IP) | 43 | 4 / 4 |
 | 68 | Commercial Litigation | 34 | 4 / 5 |
 | 82 | Regulatory & Compliance | 29 | 4 / 5 |
 | 93 | Corporate & M&A | 30 | 4 / 4 |
-| 100 | Contract Law | 28 | 4 / 5 |
+| 100 | Contract Law | 29 | 4 / 5 |
 
 Jurisdictions are US and UK (England and Wales). `task_id` values are the original corpus
 identifiers and are intentionally non-contiguous.
@@ -222,7 +233,7 @@ practitioners rather than averaged-out disagreement.
 | `rubric_category` | string | One of the seven literal values listed above |
 | `score_option` | int32 | Weight: `+5`, `+3`, `+1`, `-1`, `-3`, `-5` |
 | `criterion` | string | Binary question applied to the model's answer |
-| `justification` | string | Author's rationale for why this criterion matters |
+| `justification` | string | Author's rationale for why this criterion matters; empty for 5 of 199 criteria (see Limitations) |
 
 Text has been normalized: non-breaking spaces, stray tabs and other exotic whitespace introduced
 by the authoring tools have been folded to plain spaces. Newlines in `golden_answer` are preserved.
@@ -293,6 +304,10 @@ against hypothetical facts, not guidance on any real matter, and must not be rel
   results on this sample as indicative once models trained after its publication are involved.
 - **Reviewer identities are withheld.** Cohort-level credentials are described above; individual
   names and affiliations are not published.
+- **Five criteria carry no justification.** Four in task 40 and one in task 100 have an empty
+  `justification`; the authors did not record one. The criteria themselves are complete, scored, and
+  counted in the point budget — only the explanatory note is absent. Every other field is populated
+  in every row.
 
 ## License