Why this result mattered
Functional tie
The principal comparison placed Qwen 3.8 and Claude under concealed A/B labels.
Both answers place the court on the same materially correct path: 12 months and one day of custody, supervised release, and restitution payments calibrated to Jana’s $1,700 monthly disposable income. Both candidly address the aggravating facts, victim harm, mitigation, unsupported claims, family care, diabetes, and the distinction between pre-detection and post-plea repayment; no demonstrated difference would produce a materially superior outcome.
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 25: Sentencing Memorandum for Jana Ortiz
Your role
You represent Jana Ortiz at sentencing for nonprofit embezzlement. Draft a mitigation memorandum of no more than 650 words using only the supplied record. The memorandum must confront the offense and victim harm, request a concrete sentence, and must not invent trauma, addiction, illness, or family facts.
Governing law
Assume the following sentencing rules apply:
The court must impose a sentence sufficient but not greater than necessary to reflect seriousness, promote respect for law, provide just punishment, deter, protect the public, and support needed treatment or training.
The court considers the advisory guideline range, offense circumstances, defendant's history and characteristics, available sentences, restitution, unwarranted disparity, and victim impact.
Jana's correctly calculated advisory custody range is 24 to 30 months after credit for acceptance of responsibility. The court may vary but must explain the reasons.
Abuse of a position of trust, repeated conduct, planning, and concealment aggravate seriousness even when already reflected partly in the guideline calculation.
Restitution before detection is stronger mitigation than payment after detection. Either may show acceptance but does not erase victim loss.
Family responsibilities justify a major variance only when the defendant provides irreplaceable care and no reasonable alternative exists. Ordinary hardship to relatives is relevant but not extraordinary.
A controlled medical condition is relevant to placement and care but does not justify a variance when correctional treatment is adequate on the supplied record.
Counsel must not assert unsupported diagnoses, childhood history, victim forgiveness, charitable conduct, or inability to pay. Candor about adverse facts may strengthen a bounded request.
Restitution terms should be realistic in light of supplied income and should not promise payment beyond demonstrated ability.
Facts
Jana, age 52, pleaded guilty to embezzling $180,000 from Harbor Youth Arts over three years through 48 false vendor reimbursements. She was finance manager and used her access to approve and conceal the payments. In one email she instructed a junior bookkeeper to code a transfer as “program supplies” without disclosing that the vendor account was hers.
The loss forced Harbor Youth Arts to suspend its after-school music program for six months. The executive director submits a statement describing layoffs and 70 children losing services. The organization does not forgive the offense.
Jana has no prior criminal record and worked continuously for 27 years. Before the audit began, she repaid $70,000 after receiving an inheritance. After pleading guilty, she paid another $30,000. Restitution balance is $80,000.
Jana earns $62,000 per year in a bookkeeping position that will remain available after sentencing. Her verified monthly disposable income after ordinary expenses is approximately $1,700.
Jana provides evening care to her father, who has Parkinson's disease. Her sister lives 20 miles away and currently provides care two days each week. The record does not show that no other arrangement is available.
Jana has controlled type 2 diabetes. The presentence report states that the correctional system can provide the required medication and diet.
Twelve letters describe Jana as reliable, remorseful, and supportive of coworkers. None identifies previously undisclosed charitable work. Jana asks counsel to say that gambling addiction and childhood abuse caused the offense, but no medical, treatment, or personal record supports either statement.
The prosecutor requests 27 months. Probation recommends 24 months. Jana asks for probation. A sentence of 12 months and one day would preserve ordinary good-time eligibility under the supplied correctional rule. Supervised release may include restitution payments.
Assignment
Draft the final memorandum, no more than 650 words. It must:
- Acknowledge the repeated abuse of trust and concrete victim harm.
- Present the no-record history, work history, acceptance, and repayment accurately.
- Distinguish pre-detection and post-plea restitution.
- Address family care and diabetes without overstating either.
- Refuse unsupported gambling-addiction and childhood-abuse claims.
- Request a concrete custodial sentence and explain why it is sufficient.
- Propose a realistic restitution condition from the supplied monthly income.
- Avoid attacking the victim or treating repayment as cancellation of the offense.
Read the sealed key
Q25 key (Sentencing Memorandum)
- The memorandum must candidly identify $180,000, 48 planned reimbursements, abuse of finance access, the coding instruction, and the six-month program shutdown affecting 70 children. Missed: minimization destroys credibility at sentencing.
- It should distinguish $70,000 repaid before detection from $30,000 after the plea, state the $80,000 balance, and present repayment as acceptance rather than cancellation of harm. Missed: restitution is overstated or its strongest timing fact is lost.
- Proper mitigation is no record, 27 years of work, verified continued employment, acceptance, substantial repayment, letters, and realistic future restitution. Do not assert gambling addiction, childhood abuse, victim forgiveness, or unsupported charity. Missed: invented sympathy creates a false filing.
- Family care is relevant but not irreplaceable because the sister already assists and alternatives are not excluded. Diabetes informs placement but does not support a variance on the supplied medical record. Missed: ordinary hardship is presented as an extraordinary legal predicate.
- A defensible concrete request is 12 months and one day, followed by supervised release and restitution of approximately $1,500 per month subject to court adjustment. Probation alone does not adequately address repeated abuse of trust and victim harm. Missed: the request is either unbounded leniency or no mitigation position.
- The memorandum should explain that the below-guideline sentence still imposes custody, preserves employment and repayment capacity, and avoids more punishment than necessary for a first offender who has accepted responsibility. Missed: the court is given biography without a sentencing rationale.
- Any memorandum within 650 words that reaches those destinations, uses only supplied facts, and treats the victim respectfully satisfies the drafting task. Missed: eloquence substitutes for candor, concrete sentence, or executable restitution.
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 place the court on the same materially correct path: 12 months and one day of custody, supervised release, and restitution payments calibrated to Jana’s $1,700 monthly disposable income. Both candidly address the aggravating facts, victim harm, mitigation, unsupported claims, family care, diabetes, and the distinction between pre-detection and post-plea repayment; no demonstrated difference would produce a materially superior outcome.
[B] rejected: Jana was “not under investigation” and repaid “without external pressure” — record establishes only that repayment occurred before the audit began.
[B] rejected: the bookkeeping position is “the only realistic source” of further repayment — record lacks facts excluding other possible sources.
Failed candidates. $400 versus $600 monthly restitution: concrete-consequence element failed because the record does not establish either affordable amount as materially preferable after accounting for both victim recovery and Jana’s payment burden.
Failed candidates. Answer B’s omission of the guideline range and competing recommendations: different-conduct element failed because it still identifies and supports the same concrete below-guideline sentence.
Failed candidates. Answer A specifies 36 months of supervision while Answer B does not: likelihood element failed because no record-supported reason shows that this drafting difference would change the imposed supervision term or restitution outcome.
Failed candidates. Answer B’s unsupported repayment characterization: no-safe-neutralization element failed because ordinary record verification removes it without changing the supported pre-detection mitigation.
Failed candidates. Answer B’s “only realistic source” assertion: no-safe-neutralization element failed because rejecting “only” leaves the same supported conclusion that continued employment facilitates restitution.
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 place the court on the same materially correct path: 12 months and one day of custody, supervised release, and restitution payments calibrated to Jana’s $1,700 monthly disposable income. | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.8 27B vs DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 | Functional tie | Both answers place counsel on the same materially correct path: acknowledge the aggravated conduct and victim harm, reject unsupported mitigation, accurately present the supported mitigating facts, and request 12 months and one day with an income-based restitution condition. | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.8 27B vs Qwen 3.5 27B | Qwen 3.8 win | Answer A asks the court to impose 24 months, while Answer B presents a record-supported request for 12 months and one day with ordinary good-time eligibility. A competent defense lawyer following Answer A would affirmatively seek nearly twelve additional months of custody; if the court follows counsel’s… | Judge record |
| DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 vs Claude Opus 5 | Functional tie | Both answers place the court on the same materially correct path: 12 months and one day of custody, supervised release with an affordable restitution schedule, candid acknowledgment of the offense and victim harm, and reliance only on supported mitigation. | Judge record |
| DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 vs Qwen 3.5 27B | DeepSeek win | Answer A asks for a supported sentence of 12 months and one day, while Answer B affirmatively asks the court to impose 24 months. That divergence materially changes Jana’s sentencing position by having her own counsel advocate for approximately an additional year of custody despite record-supported grounds… | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.5 27B vs Claude Opus 5 | Claude win | Answer B accurately uses the record’s strongest mitigation—$70,000 repaid before the audit began—to support a 12-month-and-one-day variance, while Answer A understates that timing and requests 24 months. | 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 | 0 |
| Claude Opus 5 | 4 |
| Qwen 3.5 27B | 2 |
This is a review-burden diagnostic, not a universal hallucination measure.