Series 2 · Wage and hour

The Salaried Operations Analyst

Q75Four modelsSix blind pairingsMaterial-outcome scoring

Why this result mattered

Qwen 3.8 win

The principal comparison placed Qwen 3.8 and Claude under concealed A/B labels.

Answer A correctly concludes that Noah is nonexempt, establishes willfulness and liquidated damages, calculates $46,800 in unpaid overtime and a $93,600 total recovery, and provides a concrete demand. Answer B ends mid-sentence and supplies no conclusion, calculation, or litigation position, leaving the reader unable to advance Noah’s claim without reconstructing the entire analysis.

Benchmark materials

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 75: The Salaried Operations Analyst

Your role

You represent Noah Park, a former operations analyst seeking unpaid overtime. Determine whether the administrative exemption applies and calculate the exact wage claim from the supplied salary, hours, limitation period, and liquidated-damages rule.

Governing law

Assume the following wage rules apply:

  1. A nonexempt employee must receive one and one-half times the regular hourly rate for each hour worked over 40 in a workweek.

  2. Payment on a salary basis does not alone establish exemption. The employer bears the burden of proving every element of an exemption.

  3. The administrative exemption requires a primary duty of office or nonmanual work directly related to management or general business operations and the exercise of discretion and independent judgment on matters of significance.

  4. Applying detailed manuals, entering data, escalating defined exceptions, and choosing among prescribed options do not constitute independent judgment on matters of significance merely because accuracy is important.

  5. Under the salary agreement used here, the weekly salary compensates exactly 40 hours. The regular hourly rate is weekly salary divided by 40, and every overtime hour is paid at 1.5 times that rate.

  6. The ordinary limitation period is two years. It is three years for a willful violation, meaning the employer knew or recklessly disregarded that its pay practice violated the law.

  7. Liquidated damages equal the unpaid overtime unless the employer proves both subjective good faith and objectively reasonable grounds. A decision to disregard a specific internal compliance warning defeats that defense.

  8. Reasonable attorney fees and costs are separately recoverable but are not calculated in this assignment.

Facts

Noah worked for Transit Grove for 120 consecutive weeks before filing suit. He was paid a fixed salary of $1,200 per week and no overtime.

His hours were:

  • 50 hours per week for the first 80 weeks.
  • 46 hours per week for the final 40 weeks.

Noah's title was Senior Operations Analyst. His daily work consisted of compiling route-delay reports, applying a 42-page exception matrix, approving credits within preset limits, and escalating any deviation not listed in the matrix. He could not change policy, negotiate vendor terms, hire, discipline, set budgets, or bind the company. His supervisor reviewed every credit above $500.

Transit Grove argues that Noah exercised discretion because he selected the correct matrix category and his work affected a national delivery network.

Before Noah's 120-week period began, an HR compliance manager emailed the vice president:

“This analyst role follows fixed decision tables and should be reclassified as nonexempt. Salary alone will not support administrative status.”

The vice president replied:

“Keep them salaried. Overtime will wreck the budget, and no one has sued.”

Transit Grove made no duties review and kept the classification. Noah filed within one week after leaving. All 120 weeks fall within three years, but only the final 104 weeks fall within two years.

Assignment

Analyze:

  • Whether Noah's duties satisfy every element of the administrative exemption.
  • The significance of operational importance versus independent judgment.
  • Whether the three-year willful period applies.
  • The regular hourly and overtime rates.
  • Unpaid overtime for the first 80 weeks.
  • Unpaid overtime for the final 40 weeks.
  • Total unpaid overtime.
  • Liquidated damages and total wage recovery before fees and costs.
  • The concrete demand and litigation posture for Noah.


Read the sealed key

Q75 key (Operations Analyst Overtime)

  1. Noah performs office work related to operations, but Transit Grove cannot prove independent judgment on matters of significance. He applies a 42-page matrix, acts within preset limits, and escalates deviations; operational importance does not replace discretion. The administrative exemption fails. Missed: salary, title, and network impact are treated as the duties test.
  2. The HR warning and vice president's deliberate budget response establish knowing or reckless disregard. The three-year period applies, capturing all 120 weeks. Good-faith liquidated-damages relief also fails. Missed: 16 early weeks and the damages multiplier are lost.
  3. Regular rate is $1,200 divided by 40, or $30 per hour. Overtime rate is $45. Missed: salary is spread across all hours or only the half-time premium is paid contrary to the supplied agreement.
  4. First 80 weeks: 10 overtime hours per week times $45 times 80 equals $36,000. Final 40 weeks: 6 overtime hours times $45 times 40 equals $10,800. Total unpaid overtime is $46,800. Missed: hours or periods are blended into an unverifiable estimate.
  5. Liquidated damages equal $46,800, producing total wage recovery of $93,600 before attorney fees and costs. Missed: the client demands only back wages or double-multiplies the total.
  6. Demand $93,600 plus statutory fees and costs, attach the duties record and HR email, and prepare for early summary judgment or settlement on exemption and willfulness. Missed: Noah bargains from a two-year, single-damages figure the documents defeat.
Blind evaluation record

Direct judge report

The report below is preserved from the Qwen 3.8 versus Claude verdict record.

Read the preserved judge report
ANSWER A IS MATERIALLY BETTER.

Basis. Answer A correctly concludes that Noah is nonexempt, establishes willfulness and liquidated damages, calculates $46,800 in unpaid overtime and a $93,600 total recovery, and provides a concrete demand. Answer B ends mid-sentence and supplies no conclusion, calculation, or litigation position, leaving the reader unable to advance Noah’s claim without reconstructing the entire analysis.

Proof (winner verdicts only).
Exact difference: Answer A provides the exemption, limitations, damages, and demand analysis; Answer B provides only “Transit Grove mis” and omits all requested conclusions.
Different conduct: Answer A’s reader demands and litigates for $93,600 plus fees and costs; Answer B’s reader cannot formulate an answer-supported demand or claim valuation.
Concrete consequence: Noah’s supported $93,600 wage demand is advanced under Answer A but is not advanced under Answer B without independent reconstruction.
Record support: The fixed-decision duties defeat the exemption; the compliance warning establishes willfulness and defeats good faith; 1,040 overtime hours at $45 equal $46,800, doubled to $93,600.
Material magnitude: The omission concerns Noah’s entire $93,600 wage recovery and the legal grounds for obtaining it.
Likelihood: A competent lawyer receiving Answer A can act immediately, while one receiving Answer B must perform the omitted legal and damages analysis before acting.
No safe neutralization by ordinary verification: Verification cannot cure Answer B because it contains no conclusions or calculations to verify; curing it requires doing the assignment from scratch.

A rejected: categorical rejection of a $79,200 settlement or any settlement omitting liquidated damages — record lacks settlement-risk and client-preference inputs.
A rejected: mandatory 14-day payment deadline — record lacks any supplied rule or fact establishing that deadline.
A rejected: suggestion that the management-or-general-operations element independently fails — record lacks a fuller rule distinguishing general-business work from production work.

Failed candidate: A’s phrase “Noah was not entitled to the administrative exemption” — different conduct failed because the surrounding analysis unmistakably concludes that Noah is nonexempt.
Failed candidate: A’s unsupported settlement rigidity — record support failed because no settlement probabilities, costs, or client preferences were supplied.
Failed candidate: A’s first-prong discussion — different conduct failed because the independently dispositive lack of discretion produces the same nonexemption result.

Hard stop. Because Answer B omitted every requested conclusion and calculation, the reader would likely take no answer-supported action instead of demanding and litigating for $93,600 plus fees and costs, causing Noah’s supported wage recovery not to be advanced without reconstructing the entire analysis.
Complete comparison record

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
PairingResultWhy it matteredRecord
Qwen 3.8 27B vs Claude Opus 5Qwen 3.8 winAnswer A correctly concludes that Noah is nonexempt, establishes willfulness and liquidated damages, calculates $46,800 in unpaid overtime and a $93,600 total recovery, and provides a concrete demand.Judge record
Qwen 3.8 27B vs DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731Functional tieBoth answers lead Noah to the same materially correct path: challenge the exemption, claim all 120 weeks as willful, demand $46,800 in overtime plus equal liquidated damages, and seek $93,600 before fees and costs.Judge record
Qwen 3.8 27B vs Qwen 3.5 27BFunctional tieBoth answers lead counsel to classify Noah as nonexempt, invoke the three-year willful period, demand $46,800 in overtime plus $46,800 in liquidated damages, and seek $93,600 before attorney fees and costs. No supported difference changes Noah’s recoverable wages or materially alters the litigation path.Judge record
DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 vs Claude Opus 5DeepSeek winAnswer A establishes nonexempt status, willfulness, all 120 actionable weeks, and a supported demand for $93,600 plus fees and costs. Answer B is an incomplete fragment that supplies no analysis, calculation, or demand, leaving its reader unable to advance Noah’s claim without reconstructing the entire…Judge record
DeepSeek V4-Flash-0731 vs Qwen 3.5 27BFunctional tieBoth answers lead counsel to classify Noah as nonexempt, invoke the three-year willful period, and demand $93,600 plus recoverable fees and costs. Answer B’s unsupported interest demand and categorical settlement stance do not establish a record-supported improvement or harm.Judge record
Qwen 3.5 27B vs Claude Opus 5Qwen 3.5 winAnswer A is truncated and omits the exemption analysis, limitation determination, calculations, damages, and demand necessary to act. Answer B correctly directs counsel to pursue all 120 weeks, demanding $46,800 in unpaid overtime plus $46,800 in liquidated damages, for a total of $93,600 before fees and…Judge record
Rejected-point diagnostic

Judge-attributed rejected points for this matter across all six pairings:

Qwen 3.8 27B5
DeepSeek V4-Flash-07310
Claude Opus 50
Qwen 3.5 27B5

This is a review-burden diagnostic, not a universal hallucination measure.

Available reasoning traces