A proposal to the chief executive
Mode write · Create and rework text
Eight models on this case
| Model | Structure, of 8 | Quality, of 10 |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5 | 2 → 7 +5 | 9 → 10 +1 |
| Claude Sonnet 5 | 2 → 2 0 | 8 → 9 +1 |
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 1 → 5 +4 | 7 → 7 0 |
| Codex gpt-5.6-terra | 2 → 2 0 | 8 → 8 0 |
| gpt-oss-120b | 3 → 3 0 | 5 → 8 +3 |
| qwen3.6-35b-a3b | 2 → 1 −1 | 9 → 8 −1 |
| qwen3.6-fp8 | 1 → 3 +2 | 8 → 10 +2 |
| qwen3.8-27b | 2 → 1 −1 | 9 → 8 −1 |
What the judge saw across all outputs
The stronger outputs state an approval decision and translate mechanics into reader-level reasons before presenting evidence. The weaker outputs are often tidy, complete, and chronological, but their first-level branches remain file requirements and processing stages, so they answer whether the proposal can work rather than whether management should accept it.
What the judge asked of every output
- Is the first-level kind
benefits,mixed, ormechanics? - How many first-level elements are grounded in the source?
- Does the top answer whether the proposal should be accepted?
- Which facts or benefits were invented?
- Are field, format, routing, and balancing details below the key line?
- Is the reader's question stated literally?
Where the outputs fell short
| Recurring defect | Skill section | Cause | Where it appeared |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feasibility or implementation replaces the acceptance decision | Core loop §1–2, reader question and provisional answer | the skill has the rule; the model did not follow it | Without Minto · 7 Claude Opus 5, Claude Sonnet 5, Claude Haiku 4.5, Codex gpt-5.6-terra, qwen3.6-35b-a3b, qwen3.6-fp8, qwen3.8-27bWith Minto · 4 Claude Sonnet 5, Codex gpt-5.6-terra, qwen3.6-35b-a3b, qwen3.8-27b |
| Mechanics occupy the first level instead of grounded reasons | Core loop §4, Groups | the skill has the rule; the model did not follow it | Without Minto · 8 Claude Opus 5, Claude Sonnet 5, Claude Haiku 4.5, Codex gpt-5.6-terra, gpt-oss-120b, qwen3.6-35b-a3b, qwen3.6-fp8, qwen3.8-27bWith Minto · 7 Claude Sonnet 5, Claude Haiku 4.5, Codex gpt-5.6-terra, gpt-oss-120b, qwen3.6-35b-a3b, qwen3.6-fp8, qwen3.8-27b |
| Literal reader question is absent | Core loop §1 and §3 | the skill has the rule; the model did not follow it | Without Minto · 8 Claude Opus 5, Claude Sonnet 5, Claude Haiku 4.5, Codex gpt-5.6-terra, gpt-oss-120b, qwen3.6-35b-a3b, qwen3.6-fp8, qwen3.8-27bWith Minto · 6 Claude Opus 5, Claude Sonnet 5, Claude Haiku 4.5, Codex gpt-5.6-terra, qwen3.6-35b-a3b, qwen3.6-fp8 |
| Situation and complication are not both visible before support | Core loop §3, SCQ intro | the skill has no such rule | Without Minto · 5 Claude Haiku 4.5, Codex gpt-5.6-terra, gpt-oss-120b, qwen3.6-fp8, qwen3.8-27bWith Minto · 0 — |
| Unsupported operational assurances or benefits are asserted | Mode 3, “Invent nothing” | the skill has the rule; the model did not follow it | Without Minto · 1 gpt-oss-120bWith Minto · 3 Claude Opus 5, Claude Haiku 4.5, qwen3.6-fp8 |
| Operational source material disappears without acknowledgement | Mode 3, “Keep every fact” | the skill has the rule; the model did not follow it | Without Minto · 1 Claude Haiku 4.5With Minto · 2 Claude Haiku 4.5, gpt-oss-120b |
How the test was built
Prompt without Minto 2 147 B
You are working on a business document using the Minto Pyramid Principle.
<!-- Faithful paraphrase of Barbara Minto, The Minto Pyramid Principle
(2010), Chapter 3, Exhibit 5 and the surrounding top-down analysis.
The wording is original to this evaluation fixture. -->
# Fixture 01: Big Chief proposal
**Mode:** `write`
**Language:** `en`
## Context
The company supplies beverages. Drivers send delivery tickets to Finance; each
ticket identifies the customer, outlet, delivery, amount, and date. The tickets
feed the national-accounts settlement process.
Big Chief, a major multi-outlet customer, wants to replace individual ticket
settlement with a monthly computer file and one payment. Finance reviewed how
the proposed process would work and sent management the memo below.
## Before
```text
To: Robert Salton
From: John Jackson
Subject: Big Chief request
We reviewed Big Chief account 8306's request to submit delivery-ticket data
electronically and settle it through one prepaid monthly payment. Our findings
follow.
1. Any external account file must contain the parent number, outlet number,
ticket number, ticket amount, and delivery date. If Big Chief cannot provide
the first two identifiers, we can supply them from the customer master file
for inclusion in later submissions.
2. Big Chief will build an extraction program for its accounts-payable file.
The resulting file will use the format accepted by our national-accounts
cash-receipt system. Big Chief will send the file to Data Processing and
send its cheque, with a detailed listing, to the lockbox. We will balance
the file under the prescribed procedure. The cheque total and file detail
must net to zero.
3. Once balanced, the monthly file will run through the national-accounts
system, match ticket numbers against statement history, and produce the
relevant billing records.
```
## Task
Rewrite this as a short management memo using the Minto Pyramid Principle.
Do not invent benefits, savings, or operational facts that are absent from the
source.
Return only the result, with no explanation of how you produced it.
Prompt with Minto five parts, in order · 29 720 B
Below is a skill written as an instruction. Read it in full and apply it to the task at the end.===== SKILL.md =====SKILL.md at f4813ce 17 235 B===== references/rules.md =====references/rules.md at f4813ce 6 464 B===== references/templates.md =====references/templates.md at f4813ce 3 742 B===== TASK =====the whole case inputReturn only the result, with no explanation of how you produced it.
Case input before.md
<!-- Faithful paraphrase of Barbara Minto, The Minto Pyramid Principle
(2010), Chapter 3, Exhibit 5 and the surrounding top-down analysis.
The wording is original to this evaluation fixture. -->
Fixture 01: Big Chief proposal
Mode: write
Language: en
Context
The company supplies beverages. Drivers send delivery tickets to Finance; each
ticket identifies the customer, outlet, delivery, amount, and date. The tickets
feed the national-accounts settlement process.
Big Chief, a major multi-outlet customer, wants to replace individual ticket
settlement with a monthly computer file and one payment. Finance reviewed how
the proposed process would work and sent management the memo below.
Before
To: Robert Salton
From: John Jackson
Subject: Big Chief request
We reviewed Big Chief account 8306's request to submit delivery-ticket data
electronically and settle it through one prepaid monthly payment. Our findings
follow.
1. Any external account file must contain the parent number, outlet number,
ticket number, ticket amount, and delivery date. If Big Chief cannot provide
the first two identifiers, we can supply them from the customer master file
for inclusion in later submissions.
2. Big Chief will build an extraction program for its accounts-payable file.
The resulting file will use the format accepted by our national-accounts
cash-receipt system. Big Chief will send the file to Data Processing and
send its cheque, with a detailed listing, to the lockbox. We will balance
the file under the prescribed procedure. The cheque total and file detail
must net to zero.
3. Once balanced, the monthly file will run through the national-accounts
system, match ticket numbers against statement history, and produce the
relevant billing records.
Task
Rewrite this as a short management memo using the Minto Pyramid Principle.
Do not invent benefits, savings, or operational facts that are absent from the
source.
The judge’s gold gold.md
Gold 01: Big Chief proposal
Source structure: Minto (2010), Chapter 3, Exhibits 4-6.
Expected structure
| Element | Expected value |
|---|---|
| Reader question | Is Big Chief's proposal a good idea? |
| Top | Yes, the proposed process is workable and worth accepting, within the evidence available |
| Key-line kind | Reasons or reader benefits, not system mechanics |
| Order | Inductive reasons supporting one conclusion |
The book illustrates three possible benefits: obtaining the required
information, increasing cash flow, and reducing clerical work. Only the first
is directly supported by this fixture. Literal reproduction of all three is
therefore not required and unsupported benefits count as inventions.
Strong outputs:
- answer the management question before explaining the file mechanics;
- use two to four same-kind reasons grounded in the supplied facts;
- place field lists, file format, routing, balancing, and matching below those
reasons as evidence or implementation detail; - retain the literal reader question in the delivered memo.
Main defect in the source
The source explains how the proposed system would operate but never answers
whether management should accept it. A technically tidy list is still the wrong
key line if the reader is deciding whether to act.
Scoring notes
2for key-line composition: every first-level point is a grounded benefit,
loss avoided, or reason for acceptance.1: benefits and mechanics are mixed.0: the first level is entirely fields, file handling, or balancing steps.
Do not reward unsupported claims about savings, speed, or cash flow.
Judge gpt-5.6-sol, effort high · skill from commit f4813ce · run v1.7.0-final