Why this result mattered
Functional tie
The principal comparison placed Qwen 3.8 and Claude under concealed A/B labels.
Both answers place Northwind on the same material path: concede Arlo’s two timely $200 claims and Drea’s two timely $500 claims, while defeating Bina’s and Cato’s claims, for total viable statutory exposure of $1,400. They also reach the same event-specific transition, limitations, filing-date, and continuing-violation conclusions.
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 62: Four Subscribers Across an Effective Date
Your role
You represent Northwind Learning, an online subscription company, after four customers sue under a cancellation statute amended on July 1, 2025. Determine which statutory version governs each alleged act and which claims remain timely.
Governing law
Assume the following Subscription Renewal Act rules apply:
Through June 30, 2025, the former Act required clear renewal terms before initial enrollment and a reminder before each automatic renewal. It permitted cancellation by the method clearly disclosed at enrollment and provided $200 statutory damages for each noncompliant enrollment, renewal, or cancellation refusal.
Effective July 1, 2025, the amended Act retained the enrollment-disclosure and renewal-reminder duties, required a one-step online cancellation method for subscriptions enrolled online, and increased statutory damages to $500 for each noncompliant enrollment, renewal, or cancellation refusal.
Initial-enrollment disclosure duties are governed by the law in effect on the enrollment date.
Each automatic renewal is a separate event governed by the law in effect on the renewal date, including the remedy attached to a violation occurring on that date.
A cancellation request and any refusal to honor it are governed by the law in effect when the request is received. A later communication repeating an earlier refusal does not move the violation date.
The amendment applies to agreements entered before July 1 only as to renewals and cancellation requests occurring on or after July 1. It does not retroactively change the legality or remedy for earlier conduct.
Claims accruing before July 1 retain the former two-year limitation period. Claims accruing on or after July 1 have a one-year limitation period. A claim accrues on the date of the challenged enrollment, renewal, or refusal.
Filing after the amendment does not cause the amended law or remedy to govern earlier conduct.
If the statutory text assigns different dates to connected events, each event is analyzed separately rather than treating the subscription relationship as one continuing violation.
A limitations period that expires before suit is not revived by pleading the same event as part of a continuing course.
Facts
The complaint was filed on August 1, 2026. The four customers allege:
Arlo
Arlo enrolled online on May 15, 2025. The enrollment page omitted the renewal price. Northwind sent no reminder before his subscription renewed automatically on June 15, 2025. He did not cancel.
Bina
Bina enrolled online on June 20, 2025 with a compliant disclosure under the former Act. Her subscription renewed automatically on July 3, 2025. Northwind did not send the reminder and renewal disclosure required by the amended Act.
Cato
Cato enrolled online in March 2025. His enrollment disclosure stated that cancellation required a phone call. On June 30, 2025, he instead sent a cancellation request through Northwind's general web chat. Northwind replied on July 2 that he must use the disclosed phone method. The account renewed on July 4 without the amended Act's renewal reminder. Northwind's system shows the June 30 chat was received and routed that day.
Drea
Drea enrolled online on September 1, 2025. The disclosure was compliant. On September 10, 2025, she clicked “cancel,” but Northwind required five additional chat screens and then rejected the request. Northwind sent no renewal reminder before her subscription renewed on September 15.
Northwind argues that every agreement formed before or after July 1 should be governed by one version for its entire life. Plaintiffs argue that filing after July 1 makes the amended $500 remedy apply to all conduct and that every renewal keeps all earlier defects alive.
Assignment
Analyze:
- The governing version and remedy for Arlo's enrollment and June 15 renewal.
- The governing version, remedy, and limitation period for Bina's July 3 renewal.
- The governing version for Cato's June 30 cancellation request, July 2 response, and July 4 renewal.
- The governing version and timeliness of Drea's September 10 cancellation and September 15 renewal claims.
- The effect of the transition clauses on preexisting agreements.
- Whether filing date or continuing-violation reasoning changes any result.
- The exact claims and statutory-damages amounts that remain viable on August 1, 2026.
- Northwind's concrete answer and settlement posture claim by claim.
Read the sealed key
Q62 key (Amendment Effective Date)
- Arlo's May 15 enrollment and June 15 renewal are governed by the former Act. Each alleged violation carries the former $200 remedy, and both are timely under the retained two-year period when filed August 1, 2026. Total viable statutory damages for Arlo are $400. Missed: the amended $500 remedy is applied retroactively or timely old claims are discarded under the new one-year period.
- Bina's agreement predates the amendment, but the July 3 renewal is a separate post-effective event governed by the amended Act and its $500 remedy. The one-year period expired July 3, 2026, so the August 1 complaint is untimely. Missed: agreement date replaces the expressly selected renewal date, or an expired claim is valued at $500.
- Cato's cancellation request was received June 30, so the former Act governs the request and July 2 repetition of the refusal does not move the violation date. Requiring a disclosed phone method was permissible under the former version. The July 4 renewal is governed by the amendment, but its one-year period expired July 4, 2026. No Cato claim remains viable. Missed: the response date is used to manufacture a new cancellation duty or continuing violation.
- Drea's September 10 cancellation refusal and September 15 renewal are separate amended-Act violations. Both fall within one year of the August 1, 2026 filing and carry $500 each, for $1,000 total. Missed: connected events are collapsed into one violation or the preexisting-relationship theory displaces the transition text.
- Filing date does not select substantive law, and later renewals do not revive earlier expired events. The amendment applies to post-July renewals and requests under old agreements exactly as stated, not to the relationship as a whole. Missed: both sides' all-or-nothing theories override event-specific clauses.
- Viable claims total $1,400: Arlo $400 and Drea $1,000. Bina and Cato should be dismissed on limitations, with Cato also failing on the cancellation method under former law. Missed: Northwind settles or reserves against $2,000 or more of claims the transition rules defeat.
- Answer claim by claim, move to dismiss Bina and Cato, contest no more than the supported Arlo and Drea violations, and use the $1,400 statutory total as the settlement baseline before fees or any separately supplied remedy. Missed: an overbroad defense sacrifices credibility on the two live claims.
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 Northwind on the same material path: concede Arlo’s two timely $200 claims and Drea’s two timely $500 claims, while defeating Bina’s and Cato’s claims, for total viable statutory exposure of $1,400. They also reach the same event-specific transition, limitations, filing-date, and continuing-violation conclusions.
[B] rejected: $1,400–$1,800 global settlement including fees — record lacks any fee-shifting rule or evidence supporting an additional fee component.
[B] rejected: timely post-August 1 renewals could create up to $6,000 per subscriber — record lacks subsequent renewal dates, cadence, and reminder history.
[B] rejected: Drea’s account was never cancelled and continues generating claims — record lacks account-status evidence after September 15, 2025.
[A] rejected: settlement would avoid a potentially unfavorable published precedent — record lacks procedural facts establishing that consequence.
Failed candidate: Different global settlement range — record support failed.
Failed candidate: B’s additional diligence and remediation recommendations — concrete consequence failed because no continuing subscriptions or later violations are established.
Failed candidate: Cato refusal-accrual characterization — different conduct failed; both answers conclude the cancellation theory yields no recovery and seek dismissal.
Failed candidate: Different wording concerning admissions and settlement tactics — concrete consequence failed; both recommend paying Arlo and Drea and paying nothing on Bina and Cato.
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 place Northwind on the same material path: concede Arlo’s two timely $200 claims and Drea’s two timely $500 claims, while defeating Bina’s and Cato’s claims, for total viable statutory exposure of $1,400. | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.8 27B vs DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 | Functional tie | Both answers direct Northwind to recognize Arlo’s two timely former-Act claims for $400 and Drea’s two timely amended-Act claims for $1,000, while defeating Bina’s and Cato’s claims, for total viable statutory damages of $1,400. | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.8 27B vs Qwen 3.5 27B | Functional tie | Both answers direct Northwind to recognize Arlo’s two timely former-Act claims totaling $400 and Drea’s two timely amended-Act claims totaling $1,000, while defeating Bina’s renewal as untimely and Cato’s claims on merits and limitations grounds. | Judge record |
| DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 vs Claude Opus 5 | Functional tie | Both answers identify the same four viable claims, $1,400 total statutory damages, governing versions, limitations defenses, and materially identical settlement posture. Answer A’s additional conditional advice about later renewals does not establish additional exposure on the supplied record; once its… | Judge record |
| DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 vs Qwen 3.5 27B | Functional tie | Both answers direct Northwind to recognize $400 in viable Arlo claims and $1,000 in viable Drea claims, while defeating Bina’s renewal, Cato’s cancellation, and Cato’s renewal claims. | Judge record |
| Qwen 3.5 27B vs Claude Opus 5 | Functional tie | Both answers direct Northwind to concede $400 for Arlo and $1,000 for Drea, assert limitations against Bina’s and Cato’s July renewals, defeat Cato’s cancellation claim under the former Act, and reject retroactivity and continuing-violation theories. | Judge record |
Rejected-point diagnostic
Judge-attributed rejected points for this matter across all six pairings:
| Qwen 3.8 27B | 2 |
|---|---|
| DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 | 0 |
| Claude Opus 5 | 6 |
| Qwen 3.5 27B | 5 |
This is a review-burden diagnostic, not a universal hallucination measure.