Why this result mattered
Functional tie
The principal comparison placed Qwen 3.8 and Claude under concealed A/B labels.
Both answers direct Harbor Crust to challenge the defective 15-day termination, seek emergency injunctive relief, complete and document the remodel by March 24, maintain logging and current payments, demand comparator files, and reject the proposed broad release and future waiver. Their differences do not alter that materially correct and safe course or produce a demonstrated different outcome for Harbor Crust.
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 52: The Franchise Termination Notice
Your role
You represent Harbor Crust LLC, the operator of a franchised restaurant in the fictional State of Solace. The franchisor, Hearthstone Brands, has issued a termination notice citing food-safety, remodeling, advertising, and payment defaults. Harbor Crust seeks an injunction and needs to know which grounds are cured, which remain dangerous, and what comparator evidence to demand.
Governing law
Assume the following Solace rules and franchise terms apply:
A franchisor may terminate only for good cause, meaning a material breach of a reasonable franchise requirement applied in good faith.
Except for an immediate and substantial threat to public safety, abandonment, insolvency, or the third recurrence of the same material breach within twelve months, the franchisor must give written notice and 30 days to cure.
A franchisee cures when it corrects the material condition within the period and supplies reasonably requested proof. Perfect performance is unnecessary when the remaining item is immaterial and the franchisee proceeds diligently.
A public-safety breach may justify immediate suspension of the dangerous activity, but complete termination without cure remains disproportionate when the danger is promptly removed and the breach is not a third recurrence.
A franchisor may enforce standards strictly despite prior leniency if it gives clear prospective notice. Selective enforcement against similarly situated franchisees may show lack of good faith or pretext.
Acceptance of late fees or royalties after notice does not waive termination when accepted under an express reservation. It does eliminate nonpayment as an uncured ground once full payment clears.
A court may issue preliminary relief when the franchisee shows likely success, irreparable loss of the business, favorable equities, and protection of the public through interim conditions.
Comparator discovery may include notices, cure periods, extensions, and outcomes for materially similar franchisees, subject to confidentiality protection.
The franchisee must continue curing and paying undisputed amounts while challenging termination.
Facts
Hearthstone's March 1 notice states that the franchise will terminate March 16 based on four grounds:
- Two missing refrigerator-temperature logs during the prior month. An inspection found food temperatures within safe range. Harbor Crust installed an automated logger on March 3 and supplied continuous records since then. This is the second log failure in twelve months, not the third.
- Failure to complete a required dining-room remodel by February 1. By March 1 the work was 65 percent complete. Supply delays affected fixtures. The contractor's schedule shows completion by March 24. Harbor Crust requested an extension in January but received no answer.
- Use of a locally designed social-media advertisement without preapproval. Harbor Crust removed it within four hours after notice. The ad used correct prices and contained no false statement.
- $38,000 in late royalties. Harbor Crust paid the full amount March 4. Hearthstone accepted it under a reservation of rights.
The notice gave fifteen days, not 30, and did not identify any immediate food-safety suspension. Hearthstone refuses to withdraw termination, stating that the breaches show a "pattern."
A former Hearthstone field manager tells Harbor Crust that at least six company-owned or franchised locations had repeated log gaps or remodel delays and received 30-to-90-day cure extensions. The supplied record does not identify those locations, their exact violations, recurrence history, cure terms, ownership status, or decision-makers. Hearthstone has not produced comparator files.
Harbor Crust employs 42 people and will likely lose the location if the brand terminates. It is willing to accept automated logging, weekly reports for 90 days, and a binding March 24 remodel milestone. Hearthstone offers to rescind termination only if Harbor Crust signs a release, pays a $150,000 fee, and waives future challenges.
Assignment
Analyze:
- Good cause ground by ground.
- The required cure period and the public-safety exception.
- The effect of the automated logger, advertisement removal, royalty payment, and remodel progress.
- Whether the March 16 termination date is valid.
- Continued cure and payment obligations.
- The comparator evidence needed and why the current account is insufficient.
- Preliminary-injunction factors and protective interim terms.
- The proposed $150,000 release deal.
- The concrete defense, discovery demand, cure plan, and settlement position Harbor Crust should adopt.
Read the sealed key
Q52 key (Franchise Termination Notice)
- The log failures are material safety-process breaches but not an immediate dangerous condition on these facts: temperatures were safe, automated logging cured, and this is only the second recurrence. A 30-day cure period applies. Missed: the exception swallows cure based on paperwork alone.
- The remodel breach was uncured on March 1 but is being diligently corrected for March 24. The unexplained ignored extension request and 15-day notice weaken termination; bind the milestone and continue work. Missed: a curable construction delay is conceded as immediate cause.
- The ad was removed within four hours and is cured. The $38,000 was fully paid and accepted, so nonpayment is no longer uncured despite reservation of other rights. Missed: cured grounds are allowed to accumulate as a pattern without current breach.
- March 16 is premature because the ordinary 30-day period was not given and no exception supports total termination. Missed: the business ends before its contractual and statutory cure window.
- Demand comparator notices, recurrence histories, cure periods, extensions, ownership status, decision-makers, and outcomes under confidentiality. The former manager's general account is a lead, not proof. Missed: selective-enforcement theory is asserted without the missing files.
- Seek an injunction while continuing automated logs, weekly reports, remodel work, and payments. The interim safety plan protects the public and supports equities. Missed: Harbor Crust asks for relief while ceasing cure.
- The $150,000 fee and total release are not justified by the supplied cure record. Counter with rescission of termination, defined monitoring and March 24 milestone, preservation of claims, and at most a proportionate administrative payment if commercially necessary. Missed: the franchise pays a large waiver price to receive the cure right it already has.
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 direct Harbor Crust to challenge the defective 15-day termination, seek emergency injunctive relief, complete and document the remodel by March 24, maintain logging and current payments, demand comparator files, and reject the proposed broad release and future waiver. Their differences do not alter that materially correct and safe course or produce a demonstrated different outcome for Harbor Crust.
[A] rejected: “Hearthstone bears the burden on all three elements” — record lacks burden-allocation rules.
[A] rejected: prospective waivers are “ordinarily unenforceable” — record lacks waiver-enforceability rules.
[A] rejected: the $150,000 offer is “affirmative evidence” of pretext — record lacks admissibility rules establishing that use.
[A] rejected: comparator locations were “rivals” granted extensions for “the same conduct” — record does not establish ownership, material similarity, or exact violations.
Failed candidate: Answer A’s stronger characterization of the log lapse and remodel as cured or substantially performed — different conduct failed; both answers require continued logging, proof, and March 24 completion.
Failed candidate: Answer A’s unsupported burden, waiver, and evidentiary propositions — no safe neutralization failed to be proven; ordinary verification removes them without changing the recommended course.
Failed candidate: Differences in comparator-discovery scope — concrete consequence failed; both demand the records needed to establish materially similar treatment under confidentiality protection.
Failed candidate: Differences in proposed injunction conditions — concrete consequence failed; both protect operations through automated logging, reporting, inspections, remodel milestones, advertising controls, and continued payment.
Failed candidate: Differences in settlement detail and acceptable payment — likelihood failed; both reject the existing $150,000 release package and preserve future statutory challenges.
Hard stop. The 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 direct Harbor Crust to challenge the defective 15-day termination, seek emergency injunctive relief, complete and document the remodel by March 24, maintain logging and current payments, demand comparator files, and reject the proposed broad release and future waiver. | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.8 27B vs DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 | Functional tie | Both answers direct Harbor Crust to enjoin the premature March 16 termination, complete and document the remodel, maintain the other cures, pay undisputed amounts, seek comparator discovery, and reject the proposed $150,000 release package. | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.8 27B vs Qwen 3.5 27B | Functional tie | Both answers direct Harbor Crust to seek immediate injunctive relief against the defective March 16 termination, continue curing and paying undisputed obligations, complete and document the remodel, demand comparator evidence, and reject the $150,000 blanket-release proposal. | Judge record |
| DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 vs Claude Opus 5 | Functional tie | Both answers direct counsel to challenge the invalid March 16 termination, seek immediate injunctive relief, complete and document the remodel by March 24, maintain logging and payments, demand comparator records under confidentiality protections, and reject the $150,000 waiver proposal. | Judge record |
| DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 vs Qwen 3.5 27B | Functional tie | Both answers direct Harbor Crust to seek immediate injunctive relief, complete and document the March 24 remodel, maintain logging and payments, demand comparator files, and reject the proposed $150,000 release. | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.5 27B vs Claude Opus 5 | Functional tie | Both answers direct Harbor Crust to challenge the invalid 15-day termination, seek immediate injunctive relief, complete and document all cures, remain current on payments, demand materially similar comparator files, and reject the proposed release as structured. | 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 | 4 |
| Claude Opus 5 | 11 |
| Qwen 3.5 27B | 8 |
This is a review-burden diagnostic, not a universal hallucination measure.