# Per-claim groundedness judge — bake-off **v3.1** (recall-hardened over v3's 3 confirmed FNs) v3.1 of `judge-claim-prompt-v3.md`. Same blind, per-claim, one-subagent-per-file design, same three verdicts, same output schema, same evidence discipline. v3.1 changes only **three reasoning rules** (R1, R7, and a new R8), each fixing one of the **3 false negatives v3 still carried** (the judge-vs-gold disagreements G5 confirmed were genuine judge misses, not stale gold). **Why v3.1 exists — and what it is NOT (transparent, not p-hacking).** The G5b freshness spot-check (2026-06-30) blind-re-adjudicated v3's 4 apparent *false positives* against live Microsoft Learn. **All 4 turned out to be stale gold — v3 flagged every one correctly** (`adr-template#1` "zero permission management" is contradicted; `multi-region#2` lists retired `gpt-35-turbo`; `network-resilience#4` overstates "recommended" as "obligatorisk"; `vector-storage#7` cites the wrong GA date). So **v3 has zero real false positives** (P = 100% on corrected gold), and the precision-side "FP-vakt" originally planned for v3.1 is **dropped — there is nothing to defend.** v3.1 is therefore a **pure recall hardening**: it tightens three rules so the judge catches 3 documented failure modes it currently misses, without touching the precision-side rules (R2, R5, R6 and v3's R7 capability-following are unchanged). **Adoption is gated on measurement, not assertion — and the bar is now v3 (P 100% / R 92.9% on corrected gold), not v2.** v3 sits at the precision ceiling, so v3.1 can only be adopted if it **holds P = 100% AND lifts R above 92.9%** (catches FNs without introducing a single new false positive). Any new FP drops P below 100% and fails the gate — keep v3. Recall rules are double-edged over the full population (v3's own bake-off taught this), so the 45-way fan-out, not this prose, decides. v3 results stay frozen; v3.1 writes to `judge-bakeoff-results-v3.1.json` and is graded against the corrected `gold-correctness-set.json`. --- You are a correctness judge for Microsoft AI reference documentation. You verify factual claims against **live, official Microsoft Learn** (`learn.microsoft.com`). Be strict and adversarial — do not give the benefit of the doubt, do not pad, do not infer a value the source does not state. You are judging claims extracted from ``. For EACH claim in the batch below, decide whether the cited Microsoft Learn source **grounds** the claim. ## The three verdicts (exhaustive, mutually exclusive) - **`grounded`** — you fetched a `learn.microsoft.com` page that states the claimed value(s). The page supports the claim. (Maps to gold `correct`.) - **`not_grounded`** — you fetched a `learn.microsoft.com` page that states a **different / contradicting / superseded** value for what the claim asserts. The claim disagrees with the source. (Maps to gold `outdated` + `wrong`.) - **`source_silent`** — you fetched the cited page (and searched as a fallback) but **no** `learn.microsoft.com` page states the claimed value at all. You cannot confirm or refute it. (Maps to gold `unsourced`.) Pricing on JS-rendered Azure pages typically lands here — that is expected, not a failure. **Exception: existence claims — see Rule R2.** ## ⚠️ EXACT-VALUE RULE (inherited from v2 — still in force) A claim is `grounded` ONLY if the fetched page states the **exact** asserted value(s). Verifying that the page "is about" the SKU/model/feature is **not** enough — the specific number, name, date, tier, dimension, or status must match. If the claim asserts value **X** and the page states a **different** value **Y** (even if adjacent or plausible), the verdict is **`not_grounded`**. This rule does NOT lower the bar for `not_grounded`: you still need a fetched quote stating the **differing** value. Applies with special force to `sku`, `taxonomy`, `version`, `tpm`, `region`, `status`. --- ## CALIBRATION RULES — read all eight before judging The exact-value rule is a blunt instrument. The 8 rules below sharpen it on both edges: **R1–R4 and R8 catch real errors** (more `not_grounded`); **R5–R7 stop over-flagging where the core is grounded** (more correctly `grounded`). When a rule below conflicts with a literal reading of the exact-value rule, the rule below governs — it is the more precise standard. ### Recall side — flag these as `not_grounded` **R1 — Bound understatement / overstatement (fixes FN2; v3.1 splits lower vs upper).** A claim may assert a **bound**. Direction matters — judge it by which side the bound constrains: - **Lower bound** ("100+", "200k+", "at least N", "minimum N"): do not auto-`grounded` it just because the true value satisfies the inequality. Apply the **lower-bound policy:** if the true current value **grossly exceeds** the stated bound — roughly **>2× and decision-changing** — the bound materially misleads → `not_grounded`. A *tight* lower bound (true value within the same order of magnitude) stays `grounded`. *Example (FN2): "200k+ context" while the page states 1,047,576 (~1M) — ~5× → `not_grounded`.* - **Upper bound** ("up to N", "opptil N", "maximum N", "no more than N", "as many as N"): this is a **ceiling**, not a floor. The lower-bound leniency does **NOT** apply. The exact-value rule governs: if the live page states a current maximum **higher** than N, the stated ceiling is **superseded** → `not_grounded` — **regardless of ratio** (even a 1.1× exceedance breaks a ceiling). The claim tells the reader the limit is N when it is really higher. *Example (v3-FN): claim "up to 18 underlying models" while the page states 28 → the ceiling has moved → `not_grounded`.* (Only `grounded` if the true maximum is N or the claim's ceiling still binds.) **R2 — `source_silent` does NOT excuse an existence claim (fixes FN3, FN5).** When the claim asserts that a named entity **exists / is offered / is in a list** ("X is a built-in judge", "feature Y is available", "tier Z exists"), and you fetch the authoritative page that *would* enumerate it and the entity is **absent**, that absence is **evidence the claim is wrong** — return `not_grounded`, not `source_silent`. Reserve `source_silent` for values a page would not be expected to enumerate (e.g. JS-rendered prices). State in `reason` that you checked the canonical enumerating page and the entity was not present. *Example (FN5): claim "99.99% SLA tier" while the reliability page lists only 99.9% → absence of any 99.99% tier = `not_grounded`.* **R3 — Frame/unit replacement (fixes FN4).** A claim's **organizing frame or unit** can be superseded even when derived ratios survive. If the page shows the claim's framing has been **replaced** (e.g. "1 Unit Capacity" → "Quota Tiers"; a renamed/retired metric), the claim is `not_grounded` even if some embedded numbers still appear somewhere — the claim describes a world that no longer exists. Check that the *unit and structure* the claim assumes still match the current page, not just the digits. **R4 — Current row, never a legacy row (fixes FN6).** Pages often carry historical or effective-dated rows ("Before April 3, 2024", "Legacy", "Retiring"). A claim is `grounded` only if it matches the **current/effective** row. Matching a clearly time-stamped *past* row is `not_grounded` (the value has since changed). Always locate the row that applies *today*. *Example (FN6): storage limits matching only the "Before April 3, 2024" row while current limits differ → `not_grounded`.* **R8 — Multi-part claims: every load-bearing part must hold (v3.1 — fixes the `ai-foundry-dr#9` FN).** A single claim often bundles **several load-bearing sub-assertions** (a status AND a region; a capability AND a named target; a date AND a GA level). Verify **each load-bearing part separately**. If **any one** load-bearing part is contradicted by the source, the whole claim is `not_grounded` — even when the other parts check out. Do not let a correct first half earn a `grounded` for a wrong second half. *Example (v3-FN): "Global training (Public Preview), cheaper, no data residency; use regional in Norway East" — the GA-vs-Preview part and the "no residency" part hold, but **Norway East is a Global (non-residency) training region, not a regional one** → one load-bearing part is wrong → `not_grounded`.* (R8 is the mirror of R6: R6 forgives an **omitted, non-load-bearing** detail; R8 condemns a **stated, load-bearing** part that is wrong. Decide first whether the part is load-bearing — if the claim *asserts* it and a reader would act on it, it is.) ### Precision side — keep these `grounded` (do not over-flag) **R5 — Documented theoretical↔benchmark equivalence (fixes FP3).** Do not flag a numeric claim merely because the exact string is not verbatim, when the asserted value is the **documented theoretical or benchmark equivalent** of what the page states and both trace to Microsoft sources (e.g. a theoretical max vs a measured benchmark of the same technique, same order of magnitude, same direction). The exact-value rule targets *drifted/contradicting* values — not two Microsoft-sourced expressions of the same fact. If the page substantiates the magnitude and the technique, keep `grounded` and note the equivalence in `reason`. **R6 — Core grounded, detail omitted ≠ ungrounded (fixes FP4).** Distinguish "the claim's **core** assertion is grounded but it omits a sub-category" from "the core is ungrounded." If the page confirms the claim's **central** behavior/categorization and the only gap is an *unstated additional* case the claim did not deny, that is `grounded` (the claim is incomplete, not wrong). Reserve `not_grounded` for when the page **maps the core differently** or the claim **asserts** something the page contradicts. Omission ≠ contradiction. (Contrast R8: an omitted case is forgiven here; a *stated* but wrong load-bearing part is not — that is R8's domain.) **R7 — Follow the capability to its canonical page; don't punish illustrative numbers (fixes FP5; v3.1 sharpens the load-bearing carve-out).** If a claim asserts a **real capability** and the cited `evidence_url` does not foreground it, search for the **canonical** page that documents the capability before judging — do not return `not_grounded` merely because the *cited* page was a weak choice. And when a capability is solidly grounded, do **not** flag it over an *illustrative* attached number (e.g. "~0 RTO/RPO", "≈15 min") that the claim offers as an order-of-magnitude illustration rather than a cited spec. Judge the **capability**; treat an illustrative figure as grounded if the capability is. > **⚠️ Load-bearing carve-out (v3.1, fixes the `token-usage#3` FN).** R7's leniency > covers only *illustrative* values. It does **NOT** cover a value or **exact string** > that **IS the assertion** — a metric name, an API field, an SDK identifier, an enum > value, a specific date/version. When the claim's load-bearing content is the literal > name/string itself (e.g. "the metrics are `PromptTokens` and `CompletionTokens`"), > the exact-value rule applies in full: if the live page names them differently > (`ProcessedPromptTokens` / `InputTokens` / `GeneratedTokens` / `OutputTokens`), the > claim is `not_grounded`. "Follow to the canonical page" means find the **right > names**, not rescue wrong ones. A reader would copy that string into code; an > illustrative magnitude they would not. --- ## Procedure (per claim) 1. **Identify the volatile assertion(s)** in the claim text — and when the claim bundles several (R8), enumerate **each load-bearing part**. The `claim_type` tells you what to check: - `version` → model/API version, GA date, context window, max output, training cutoff - `tpm` → tokens-per-minute / throughput / quota numbers - `sku` → SKU name, tier, PTU minimums, deployment type - `region` → regional availability - `status` → GA / preview / retirement / deprecation status - `taxonomy` → categorization, capability mapping, which-feature-does-what 2. **Fetch the cited source** with `microsoft_docs_fetch` on the claim's `evidence_url`. If the claim has no `evidence_url`, or the fetched page does not address the assertion, run `microsoft_docs_search` to find the authoritative page. **Under R2/R7, actively seek the canonical enumerating/capability page** — a weak cited URL is not the last word. 3. **Exact-value entailment check** each checkable value (and each load-bearing part under R8), then apply the calibration rules R1–R8. Classify which rule(s), if any, govern the claim. For R1, first decide whether the bound is a **lower** bound (floor) or an **upper** bound (ceiling) — they invert. 4. **Strict evidence rule:** a `grounded` or `not_grounded` verdict REQUIRES a verbatim quote you actually fetched from a `learn.microsoft.com` URL. For R2 (existence absence), the quote is the canonical enumeration in which the entity does **not** appear — quote the enumeration and state the entity is absent. No quote → `source_silent`. ## Hard rules - Verify against the fetched page only. Do not rely on prior knowledge of model specs / prices — those are exactly what may have drifted. - Stable identifiers are not volatile and are not your job to refute: regulation year (2024/1689), case numbers (C-311/18), standard version names (OWASP LLM Top 10 2025, MADR v3.0), file names. If a claim is purely such an identifier, judge it on whatever volatile value it carries, else `source_silent`. - One verdict per claim. Return EXACTLY the JSON below — no prose, no markdown fence. - `evidence_quote` = the verbatim sentence/value from the fetched page that drove the verdict (empty string for `source_silent`). `evidence_url` = the page you actually used (may differ from the cited one if you fell back to search). - `rule` = which calibration rule governed, if any (`R1`–`R8`), else empty. ## Batch to judge (from ``) ## Output (strict JSON, no fence) ``` {"file":"","results":[ {"id":"","judge_verdict":"grounded|not_grounded|source_silent","rule":"","evidence_url":"","evidence_quote":"","reason":""} ]} ```