Why this result mattered
Functional tie
The principal comparison placed Qwen 3.8 and Claude under concealed A/B labels.
Both answers end the joint representation, preserve all evidence, correct the government’s false understanding before the deadline, truthfully produce the altered draft and metadata, decline Nora’s immunity request, and transition Samuel, Nora, and the adverse internal investigation to independent counsel. Both restrict any continuing Ardent role to emergency correction, preservation, and subpoena work without using individual confidences adversely; no concrete client consequence from their remaining differences is established.
Fast audit
Open the underlying record
These links open all four answers, the principal blind judgment, original prompt, and sealed key.
Prompt and sealed key
The key is an audit reference. It was not shown to the contestant systems and did not determine the comparative verdict.
Read the original matter prompt
Question 7: The Altered Board Minutes
Your role
You are general counsel to the law firm representing Ardent Medical Systems, its chief executive, and its chief financial officer in a government investigation. You must advise the firm on its obligations during the next 48 hours.
Governing law
A lawyer representing an organization represents the organization itself, acting through its authorized constituents.
When a lawyer knows that an officer is violating a legal obligation to the organization, or committing a violation likely to cause substantial injury to it, the lawyer must ordinarily report the matter to higher authority within the organization.
A lawyer must not knowingly make a false statement, offer false evidence, assist obstruction, conceal evidence, or use legal services to further a crime or fraud.
If a lawyer has unknowingly submitted false evidence and later learns of the falsity, the lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures. When necessary, remedial obligations override ordinary confidentiality.
A lawyer may reveal confidential information to prevent or rectify substantial financial injury resulting from a client’s crime or fraud when the client used or is using the lawyer’s services in furtherance of that conduct. Disclosure must be limited to what is reasonably necessary.
Joint representation is permissible only when the lawyer reasonably believes competent and diligent representation of each client remains possible and every affected client gives informed written consent.
A conflict is nonconsentable when the lawyer would be required to advocate one current client’s position directly against another or when effective representation would be materially impaired.
A lawyer must withdraw when continued representation would violate professional rules. Upon withdrawal, the lawyer must take reasonable steps to protect clients, without assisting unlawful conduct.
Payment by the organization does not permit interference with independent professional judgment or determine which client’s interests control.
Communications made as part of a joint representation are generally privileged against outsiders. One joint client cannot unilaterally waive another joint client’s privilege in shared communications. In a later dispute between joint clients, shared communications ordinarily are not privileged between them.
Separate communications concerning only an individual client may remain that individual’s confidential information.
The organization may waive its own privilege through properly authorized decisionmakers, but it cannot waive an individual’s separate privilege.
Facts
The firm represents:
- Ardent Medical Systems.
- Chief executive Samuel Price.
- Chief financial officer Nora Bell.
The engagement letter states that the representation is joint, that information relevant to the matter may be shared among the joint clients, and that the firm may withdraw from representing all clients if a conflict arises.
The government is investigating whether Ardent falsely represented that its board approved a major distribution agreement before the agreement was signed.
A subpoena requests board minutes, drafts, metadata, and communications concerning the approval.
Samuel privately tells the lead partner:
“The board orally approved the deal in March, but the secretary never finished the minutes. After the subpoena arrived, I edited the unsigned draft to show a March approval date. It reflects what actually happened. Produce it and do not create a needless scandal.”
The electronic metadata shows the document was edited after the subpoena.
Nora separately tells another firm lawyer:
“There was no March approval. Samuel told me to say there was. I want to cooperate before I am blamed.”
She asks the firm to seek immunity for her.
One week earlier, before learning that the minutes had been altered, a junior firm lawyer included the altered document in a voluntary presentation to investigators. The presentation described the minutes as a contemporaneous corporate record.
After learning what occurred, Ardent’s independent directors vote to remove Samuel as chief executive and instruct the firm to correct the government presentation, preserve all evidence, and represent Ardent in evaluating claims against Samuel.
Samuel contends that the board meeting removing him was procedurally invalid. He insists that he remains a current joint client and directs the firm not to disclose his statement.
Nora asks the firm to argue that Samuel alone is responsible. Ardent’s board asks the firm to advise whether Nora also participated in the conduct.
The government has not yet learned that the minutes were altered. The subpoena response is due in 48 hours.
Assignment
Provide a concrete legal-ethics plan addressing:
- Whether the firm may continue representing Ardent, Samuel, and Nora.
- Whether any conflict is consentable.
- Which lawyers, if any, may continue representing which clients.
- The firm’s obligations concerning the altered minutes already shown to investigators.
- What may or must be disclosed, to whom, and in what sequence.
- Whether Samuel’s statement is confidential, privileged, subject to an exception, or overridden by remedial duties.
- Nora’s request for immunity.
- The disputed validity of Samuel’s removal.
- Preservation obligations and the pending subpoena response.
- Withdrawal and transition obligations.
- Which communications Ardent may waive and which it may not.
- How the firm should avoid using one current or former client’s information improperly against another.
- The consequences of correcting the record, remaining silent, or withdrawing without explanation.
- The exact defensible course the firm should take during the next 48 hours.
Read the sealed key
Q7 key (Altered Board Minutes)
- The conflicts are nonconsentable now: Ardent is adverse to Samuel, Nora is adverse to Samuel, and Ardent must evaluate Nora. The firm must withdraw from Samuel and Nora immediately; continuing for Ardent is the defensible position under the engagement structure. Missed: the firm practices under a disqualifying conflict during the critical window.
- The altered minutes shown to investigators trigger mandatory remedial measures; silence is not an option, and remedial duty overrides confidentiality to the extent necessary. Missed: the firm becomes an obstruction participant.
- Sequence is itself material: act through Ardent's independent directors (the authorized constituents), notify Samuel of withdrawal and of the remedial correction, correct the presentation with investigators before or with the subpoena response, and produce accurate documents with metadata intact. Missed: any inverted order creates new exposure.
- The subpoena response cannot include the altered document presented as authentic, and the firm cannot assert the March approval date. Missed: a fresh false statement.
- Samuel's statement: shared within a joint representation, available to Ardent as against him, and independently subject to the remedial override; disclose only what is necessary. Missed: either improper silence or overdisclosure.
- Nora: the firm cannot seek immunity for her or position her against Samuel; she needs independent counsel now; her separate communications stay hers. Missed: a second conflict violation.
- Samuel's contested removal is not the firm's to adjudicate; the firm takes direction from the independent directors and does not act on Samuel's instructions. Missed: paralysis or wrong-master error inside 48 hours.
- The 48-hour plan (withdrawals, board-directed correction, preservation confirmation, accurate subpoena response, counsel referrals for Samuel and Nora) is the deliverable; a memo that analyzes without sequencing fails the client. Missed: the deadline passes with the violation uncorrected.
Direct judge report
The report below is preserved from the Qwen 3.8 versus Claude verdict record.
Read the preserved judge report
Basis. Both answers end the joint representation, preserve all evidence, correct the government’s false understanding before the deadline, truthfully produce the altered draft and metadata, decline Nora’s immunity request, and transition Samuel, Nora, and the adverse internal investigation to independent counsel. Both restrict any continuing Ardent role to emergency correction, preservation, and subpoena work without using individual confidences adversely; no concrete client consequence from their remaining differences is established.
[A] rejected: categorical assertion that imputation prevents any screen — record contains no imputation or screening rule.
[B] rejected: categorical assertion that screening permits limited continued representation — record contains no imputation or screening rule.
Failed candidate: correction within 3–6 hours versus 24–36 hours — concrete consequence failed.
Failed candidate: categorical withdrawal from Nora versus withdrawal from adverse scopes — different conduct failed because both refer her to independent counsel and decline immunity work.
Failed candidate: Samuel’s statement treated as joint versus potentially separate — different conduct failed because both report sufficiently to Ardent, withhold the admission from investigators unless necessary, and deny unilateral waiver.
Failed candidate: ratifying board resolution versus authority confirmation or possible court review — concrete consequence failed.
Failed candidate: imaging before individual notice versus an immediate hold including the individuals — concrete consequence failed.
Failed candidate: giving Nora a short opportunity to approach investigators first — concrete consequence failed.
Failed candidate: whole-firm imputation versus a clean-lawyer screen — different conduct failed because both confine the firm to the same emergency tasks and send adverse work to new counsel.
Failed candidate: notice of withdrawal to investigators stated categorically versus only when required — concrete consequence failed because both directly correct the presentation and identify replacement counsel.
Hard stop. The required sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.
All six pairings
Every pair of the four model answers was judged independently under the same evaluation instrument.
Open the six head-to-head results
| Pairing | Result | Why it mattered | Record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen 3.8 27B vs Claude Opus 5 | Functional tie | Both answers end the joint representation, preserve all evidence, correct the government’s false understanding before the deadline, truthfully produce the altered draft and metadata, decline Nora’s immunity request, and transition Samuel, Nora, and the adverse internal investigation to independent counsel. | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.8 27B vs DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 | Functional tie | Both answers require immediate preservation, correction of the government presentation, truthful treatment of the altered draft and metadata, termination of the joint representation, independent counsel for Samuel and Nora, and protection against misuse of individual confidences. | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.8 27B vs Qwen 3.5 27B | Qwen 3.8 win | Answer A limits any continued Ardent representation to correction, preservation, and a truthful subpoena response, while prohibiting use of Samuel’s separate confidential statement to pursue Ardent’s claims against him. | Judge record |
| DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 vs Claude Opus 5 | Functional tie | Both readers preserve all evidence, stop use of the altered minutes, narrowly correct the government presentation, decline Nora’s immunity request, withdraw from conflicted substantive representations, protect individual confidences beyond necessary remediation, and transition the subpoena response to… | Judge record |
| DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 vs Qwen 3.5 27B | DeepSeek win | Answer A directs the firm to continue representing Ardent and expressly permits using Samuel’s confidential admission to prove fraud, while Ardent is evaluating claims against him. | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.5 27B vs Claude Opus 5 | Functional tie | Both answers direct withdrawal from Samuel and Nora, prompt correction of the prior false characterization without initially disclosing their admissions, preservation of all versions and metadata, and a qualified subpoena production. | Judge record |
Rejected-point diagnostic
Judge-attributed rejected points for this matter across all six pairings:
| Qwen 3.8 27B | 1 |
|---|---|
| DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 | 2 |
| Claude Opus 5 | 3 |
| Qwen 3.5 27B | 8 |
This is a review-burden diagnostic, not a universal hallucination measure.