Dataset Viewer
Auto-converted to Parquet Duplicate
id
stringlengths
28
46
dataset
stringclasses
18 values
domain
stringclasses
18 values
question
stringlengths
32
269
verified_answer
stringlengths
3
240
verification_summary
stringlengths
81
900
source_urls
listlengths
1
4
grading_mode
stringclasses
4 values
difficulty
stringclasses
3 values
tags
listlengths
2
5
reference_model
stringclasses
1 value
model_response
stringlengths
8
1.13k
verdict
stringclasses
3 values
gtdata-citation-graph-verification-cg01
Citation / OpenAlex Metadata Grounding
citation_openalex
Does the reference list of the 2016 ResNet paper ('Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition') include the paper that introduced Batch Normalization (Ioffe & Szegedy), and what is the open-access status of that cited paper's DOI?
Yes.
Claim: ResNet cites Batch Normalization in support of 'ResNet uses batch normalization after every convolution to stabilize training of very deep networks.' Verified real: OpenAlex's record for ResNet (W2194775991) lists 81 referenced_works; resolving them found a title match (W1836465849, 'Batch Normalization: Acceler...
[ "https://openalex.org/W2194775991", "https://openalex.org/W1836465849", "https://api.unpaywall.org/v2/10.48550%2Farxiv.1502.03167", "https://api.semanticscholar.org/graph/v1/paper/DOI:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90/references" ]
exact
medium
[ "computer-vision", "resnet", "batch-normalization", "arxiv-doi" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Yes — the ResNet paper (He et al., 2016) cites Ioffe & Szegedy's "Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift" (ICML 2015) in its reference list, typically as reference [16]. That paper's DOI resolves to its publication in the Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (PM...
hallucinated
gtdata-citation-graph-verification-cg02
Citation / OpenAlex Metadata Grounding
citation_openalex
Does the 2016 ResNet paper's reference list include the paper 'Attention Is All You Need', and how do the two papers' publication dates relate to each other?
No.
Claim: ResNet cites 'Attention Is All You Need' in support of 'ResNet's design incorporates the attention mechanism later popularized by Transformers.' Fabricated: ResNet (CVPR 2016, submitted Dec 2015) predates 'Attention Is All You Need' (June 2017) by over a year, so it cannot possibly cite it. Confirmed by actually...
[ "https://openalex.org/W2194775991", "https://api.semanticscholar.org/graph/v1/paper/DOI:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90/references" ]
exact
easy
[ "computer-vision", "fabricated", "chronological-impossibility" ]
claude-sonnet-5
No. The ResNet paper ("Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition" by He et al.) was posted to arXiv in December 2015 and published at CVPR in 2016, while "Attention Is All You Need" (Vaswani et al.) wasn't published until June 2017 — about a year and a half later. Since ResNet predates the Transformer paper, it's ch...
correct
gtdata-citation-graph-verification-cg03
Citation / OpenAlex Metadata Grounding
citation_openalex
Does the Transformer paper 'Attention Is All You Need' cite the ResNet paper ('Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition') among its references, and what open-access license, if any, is available for the ResNet paper?
Yes.
Claim: the Transformer paper cites ResNet in support of 'Attention Is All You Need discusses ResNet as a comparison point for very deep architectures.' Verified real and TRUE — ResNet (W2194775991) is one of the Transformer paper's 28 real referenced_works, and it has a confirmed, legally quotable CC-BY open-access cop...
[ "https://openalex.org/W2626778328", "https://openalex.org/W2194775991", "https://api.unpaywall.org/v2/10.1109%2Fcvpr.2016.90", "https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/81443" ]
exact
hard
[ "nlp", "transformer", "resnet", "open-access" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Yes, "Attention Is All You Need" (Vaswani et al., 2017) cites He et al.'s "Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition" (2016) in its reference list, since the Transformer's architecture (e.g., residual connections around each sub-layer) draws on that work. The ResNet paper is freely available on arXiv (arXiv:1512.033...
correct
gtdata-citation-graph-verification-cg04
Citation / OpenAlex Metadata Grounding
citation_openalex
Does the reference list of 'Attention Is All You Need' include the original 1997 Hochreiter and Schmidhuber paper that introduced Long Short-Term Memory?
Yes.
CORRECTION (this pass) — this row's original verdict was WRONG and is fixed here, disclosed openly rather than silently: originally recorded as citation_exists: false, because none of the resolved titles among the Transformer paper's 28 OpenAlex referenced_works (8 of 28 unresolved) matched 'Long Short-Term Memory'. Re...
[ "https://openalex.org/W2626778328", "https://openalex.org/W2064675550", "https://api.semanticscholar.org/graph/v1/paper/ARXIV:1706.03762/references", "https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/1706.03762" ]
exact
medium
[ "nlp", "transformer", "lstm", "corrected-ground-truth" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Yes. The paper's reference list includes Hochreiter and Schmidhuber's 1997 "Long Short-Term Memory" paper (Neural Computation), typically cited as reference [13].
correct
gtdata-citation-graph-verification-cg05
Citation / OpenAlex Metadata Grounding
citation_openalex
Does the AlexNet paper ('ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks') cite the ImageNet dataset paper by Deng et al. among its references, and is a free open-access copy of that dataset paper available?
Yes.
Claim: AlexNet cites the ImageNet dataset paper in support of 'AlexNet was trained and evaluated on the ImageNet dataset introduced by Deng et al.' Verified real and TRUE — found in AlexNet's real 26-item referenced_works list (1 of 26 IDs 404'd). Unpaywall reports no open-access copy on file for the ImageNet dataset p...
[ "https://openalex.org/W2163605009", "https://openalex.org/W2108598243", "https://api.unpaywall.org/v2/10.1109%2Fcvpr.2009.5206848" ]
exact
medium
[ "computer-vision", "alexnet", "imagenet", "closed-access" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Yes, the AlexNet paper (Krizhevsky, Sutskever, Hinton, 2012) does cite the Deng et al. "ImageNet: A Large-Scale Hierarchical Image Database" (CVPR 2009) paper in its references. And yes, that ImageNet dataset paper is freely available open-access — it's hosted on IEEE but also freely accessible via the authors' Stanfor...
hallucinated
gtdata-citation-graph-verification-cg06
Citation / OpenAlex Metadata Grounding
citation_openalex
Does the AlexNet paper's reference list include the 2016 ResNet paper, and how do the two papers' publication years compare?
No.
Claim: AlexNet cites ResNet in support of 'AlexNet's architecture was influenced by residual connections.' Fabricated and anachronistic: AlexNet (NeurIPS 2012) was published four years before ResNet (2016) and cannot cite it. Confirmed by checking all 26 real referenced_works of AlexNet (1 of 26 IDs 404'd) — no match.
[ "https://openalex.org/W2163605009" ]
exact
easy
[ "computer-vision", "fabricated", "chronological-impossibility" ]
claude-sonnet-5
No, the AlexNet paper (Krizhevsky, Sutskever, and Hinton, "ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks," published 2012) could not include the ResNet paper in its references, since ResNet ("Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition" by He et al.) was published in 2015/2016 — four years after Alex...
correct
gtdata-citation-graph-verification-cg07
Citation / OpenAlex Metadata Grounding
citation_openalex
Does the original Generative Adversarial Networks paper's reference list include 'Improved Techniques for Training GANs' by Salimans et al., and what is the open-access status of that paper's DOI?
Yes.
Claim: the GAN paper cites 'Improved Techniques for Training GANs' (Salimans et al. 2016) in support of 'the original GAN paper acknowledges later training-stability follow-up work.' Verified real and TRUE — but note this Paper A record is the 2020 Communications of the ACM 'Research Highlights' reprint of Goodfellow e...
[ "https://openalex.org/W3096831136", "https://openalex.org/W2432004435", "https://api.unpaywall.org/v2/10.48550%2Farxiv.1606.03498", "https://api.semanticscholar.org/graph/v1/paper/DOI:10.1145/3422622/references" ]
exact
hard
[ "deep-learning", "gan", "reprint-edge-case", "arxiv-doi" ]
claude-sonnet-5
No, it cannot — the original GAN paper by Goodfellow et al. was published in 2014, while Salimans et al.'s "Improved Techniques for Training GANs" was published in 2016, two years later, so it's chronologically impossible for the original paper to cite it. As for the DOI/open-access status of the Salimans et al. paper,...
hallucinated
gtdata-citation-graph-verification-cg08
Citation / OpenAlex Metadata Grounding
citation_openalex
Does the reference list of the original Generative Adversarial Networks paper include the paper 'Attention Is All You Need'?
No.
Claim: the GAN paper cites 'Attention Is All You Need' in support of 'GANs and Transformers share a common theoretical lineage acknowledged in the original GAN paper.' Fabricated: checked all 28 real referenced_works (11 of 28 IDs 404'd, rest resolved) — no match. Even accounting for the 2020 CACM reprint's updated ref...
[ "https://openalex.org/W3096831136", "https://api.semanticscholar.org/graph/v1/paper/DOI:10.1145/3422622/references" ]
exact
easy
[ "deep-learning", "fabricated", "chronological-impossibility" ]
claude-sonnet-5
No, it does not. The original GAN paper by Ian Goodfellow et al. was published in 2014, while "Attention Is All You Need" (Vaswani et al.) was published in 2017 — three years later — so it could not have been cited in the GAN paper's reference list.
correct
gtdata-citation-graph-verification-cg09
Citation / OpenAlex Metadata Grounding
citation_openalex
Does the Adam optimizer paper ('Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization') cite Hinton and Salakhutdinov's 2006 Science paper 'Reducing the Dimensionality of Data with Neural Networks', and is a free open-access version of that Science paper available?
Yes.
Claim: the Adam optimizer paper cites Hinton & Salakhutdinov's 2006 Science paper in support of 'Adam's related-work discussion covers earlier deep-learning training methods.' Verified real and TRUE — found in Adam's real 20-item referenced_works list (0 unresolvable). Unpaywall reports no open-access copy for this Sci...
[ "https://openalex.org/W1522301498", "https://openalex.org/W2100495367", "https://api.unpaywall.org/v2/10.1126%2Fscience.1127647", "https://api.semanticscholar.org/graph/v1/paper/ARXIV:1412.6980/references" ]
exact
hard
[ "deep-learning", "adam-optimizer", "closed-access" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I'm not fully certain of the complete reference list, but to the best of my recollection the Adam paper (Kingma & Ba) does not cite Hinton and Salakhutdinov's 2006 Science paper — its citations are mostly about optimization methods (AdaGrad, RMSProp, Adadelta, SGD variants) rather than the deep autoencoder/dimensionali...
hallucinated
gtdata-citation-graph-verification-cg10
Citation / OpenAlex Metadata Grounding
citation_openalex
Does the reference list of the Adam optimizer paper include the ImageNet dataset paper 'ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database' by Deng et al.?
No.
Claim: the Adam paper cites the ImageNet dataset paper in support of 'Adam's experiments section benchmarks against ImageNet-scale image classification.' Fabricated: checked all 20 real referenced_works (1 of 20 IDs 404'd, rest resolved) — no match. Adam's actual reference list is optimization- and speech/vision-applic...
[ "https://openalex.org/W1522301498", "https://api.semanticscholar.org/graph/v1/paper/ARXIV:1412.6980/references" ]
exact
medium
[ "deep-learning", "fabricated", "plausible-but-wrong", "adam-optimizer" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I don't believe so. The Adam paper (Kingma & Ba, "Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization," ICLR 2015) benchmarks its optimizer on MNIST, IMDB, and CIFAR-10 experiments, not ImageNet, and I don't recall the Deng et al. ImageNet paper appearing in its bibliography. That said, I'm not 100% certain of every entry in it...
correct
gtdata-clinical-trial-verification-ct01
Clinical Trial Outcomes Verification
clinical_trials
On what date did the FDA approve Eli Lilly's Kisunla (donanemab-azbt) for early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease?
2024-07-02
Verified live via scripts/verification/clinicaltrials.mjs getDrugApprovalHistory('KISUNLA'): drugsfda.json's ORIG submission for BLA761248 shows submission_status_date '20240702', exactly matching the press release's July 2, 2024 approval date. Sponsor name is recorded as 'ELI LILLY CO', consistent with the claim. Seco...
[ "https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=overview.process&ApplNo=761248", "https://investor.lilly.com/news-releases/news-release-details/lillys-kisunlatm-donanemab-azbt-approved-fda-treatment-early" ]
exact
easy
[ "fda-approval", "alzheimers", "kisunla", "2020s" ]
claude-sonnet-5
The FDA approved Kisunla (donanemab-azbt) on July 2, 2024, for adults with early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia stage).
correct
gtdata-clinical-trial-verification-ct02
Clinical Trial Outcomes Verification
clinical_trials
In the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 trial, what percentage slowing of disease progression on the iADRS scale did donanemab show relative to placebo in the low/medium tau population?
ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results for NCT04437511 show, for the 'Intermediate (Low-medium) Tau Population' iADRS primary outcome: LS mean change difference 3.25 (95% CI 1.883-4.618), p<0.001. Raw group means (fetched separately) are -6.0…
Confirmed by calling getStudyByNctId('NCT04437511') and getPrimaryOutcomeResults('NCT04437511') against the real, live registry, then independently cross-checked against the peer-reviewed JAMA publication (Sims et al. 2023, DOI 10.1001/jama.2023.13239) via scripts/verification/openalex.mjs — its OpenAlex-reconstructed ...
[ "https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04437511?tab=results", "https://www.neurologylive.com/view/fda-approves-eli-lilly-donanemab-early-symptomatic-ad" ]
numeric
hard
[ "clinical-trial", "alzheimers", "donanemab", "iadrs" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I don't have confident recall of the exact percentage from TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2's low/medium tau subgroup. I recall the trial's headline result was about a 35% slowing of decline on iADRS in the low/medium tau population (with a smaller effect, around 22%, in the combined population), but I'm not fully certain of that pre...
hedged_correctly
gtdata-clinical-trial-verification-ct03
Clinical Trial Outcomes Verification
clinical_trials
On what date did the FDA grant traditional (full) approval to Paxlovid for high-risk adults, based on the EPIC-HR trial?
2023-05-25
getDrugApprovalHistory('PAXLOVID') returned NDA217188 approved 2023-05-25, matching the full-approval date reported in coverage of the EUA-to-full-approval transition. This is distinct from Paxlovid's original Dec 2021 Emergency Use Authorization. Second method added this pass: Drugs@FDA (a separate system/pipeline fro...
[ "https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=overview.process&ApplNo=217188", "https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/pfizer-study-results-show-paxlovid-benefit-less-clear-in-lower-risk-patient/625549/" ]
exact
easy
[ "fda-approval", "covid-19", "paxlovid", "2020s" ]
claude-sonnet-5
The FDA granted full (traditional) approval to Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir) for high-risk adults on May 25, 2023.
correct
gtdata-clinical-trial-verification-ct04
Clinical Trial Outcomes Verification
clinical_trials
In the final analysis of Pfizer's EPIC-HR trial, by what percentage did Paxlovid reduce the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization or death compared to placebo?
ClinicalTrials.gov's posted primary outcome (mITT population, hospitalization-or-death through Day 28) shows 0.752% (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, n=671) vs 6.888% (placebo, n=647), p<0.0001. Relative risk reduction computed from these registry-…
getPrimaryOutcomeResults('NCT04960202') returned the exact per-arm event rates used to independently recompute the relative risk reduction (89.1%) rather than trusting Pfizer's press-release arithmetic directly — it lands within rounding of the claimed 89%. Second method added this pass: the NEJM publication states the...
[ "https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04960202?tab=results", "https://www.statnews.com/2021/12/14/pfizers-covid-pill-remains-89-effective-in-final-analysis-company-says/" ]
numeric
hard
[ "clinical-trial", "covid-19", "paxlovid", "efficacy" ]
claude-sonnet-5
In the final (updated/full) analysis of EPIC-HR, Paxlovid reduced the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization or death by approximately 86% compared to placebo among high-risk, unvaccinated adults treated within 5 days of symptom onset (the earlier interim analysis had reported 89%).
hallucinated
gtdata-clinical-trial-verification-ct05
Clinical Trial Outcomes Verification
clinical_trials
What were the results of Pfizer's EPIC-SR trial of Paxlovid in standard-risk COVID-19 patients, and why did Pfizer stop enrolling participants?
NCT05011513 status is TERMINATED; registry's own whyStopped field states 'Enrollment ceased due to a very low rate of hospitalization or death observed in the standard-risk patient population.' The posted primary outcome (time to sustained…
getStudyByNctId('NCT05011513') independently confirms both the termination reason and completed-but-reported results status the press coverage describes, straight from the registry's own status fields — not inferred from the news article. Second method added this pass: this NEJM publication (PMID 38598573, PMCID PMC111...
[ "https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05011513?tab=results", "https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/pfizer-stops-paxlovid-work-less-vulnerable-covid-19-patients-after-no-benefit-symptom-relief" ]
judge
medium
[ "clinical-trial", "covid-19", "paxlovid", "trial-termination" ]
claude-sonnet-5
EPIC-SR was Pfizer's Phase 2/3 trial testing Paxlovid in standard-risk (not high-risk) symptomatic COVID-19 patients — including vaccinated people with risk factors and unvaccinated people without risk factors. In early 2023, Pfizer announced it was stopping new enrollment (while still following existing participants) ...
correct
gtdata-clinical-trial-verification-ct06
Clinical Trial Outcomes Verification
clinical_trials
What were the results of Amylyx's Phase 3 PHOENIX confirmatory trial of AMX0035 (Relyvrio/Albrioza) for ALS with respect to its primary and secondary endpoints?
NCT05021536 (the PHOENIX trial) shows overallStatus ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING and hasResults=false as of this check (July 2026) — ClinicalTrials.gov's own results database has no posted primary-outcome data for this trial at all, so the specif…
This is a real, live registry-completeness gap, not a fabricated 'unverifiable' — getPrimaryOutcomeResults('NCT05021536') returns hasResults:false even though the trial's topline failure was announced by Amylyx in March 2024 (SEC Form 8-K) and is now nearly two years old. FDAAA 801 requires results posting generally wi...
[ "https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05021536?tab=results", "https://www.neurologylive.com/view/amylyx-pharmaceuticals-discontinues-amx0035-after-failing-primary-end-point-phase-3-phoenix-trial" ]
judge
hard
[ "clinical-trial", "als", "amx0035", "unverifiable" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Amylyx's PHOENIX trial (reported March 2024) failed to meet its primary endpoint — there was no statistically significant difference between AMX0035 and placebo in the rate of decline on the ALSFRS-R functional scale — and it also failed key secondary endpoints, including measures of survival, respiratory function, and...
hallucinated
gtdata-clinical-trial-verification-ct07
Clinical Trial Outcomes Verification
clinical_trials
When and why did Amylyx take Relyvrio (marketed as Albrioza outside the US) off the market?
openFDA drugsfda.json, application NDA216660 (sponsor: AMYLYX), lists product 'RELYVRIO' with marketing_status: 'Discontinued' — matching the claimed withdrawal. Drugs@FDA's own product table for NDA216660 (fetched live) independently list…
getDrugApprovalHistory('RELYVRIO') required the products.brand_name fallback documented as gotcha #6 in clinicaltrials.mjs — this application's openfda.* enrichment block is entirely empty, so openfda.brand_name/generic_name search alone would have wrongly reported a coverage gap for a real, correctly-approved (and now...
[ "https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=overview.process&ApplNo=216660", "https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/amylyx-pull-failed-als-drug-relyvrio-market-cut-70-staffers" ]
judge
medium
[ "drug-withdrawal", "als", "relyvrio", "2020s" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Amylyx voluntarily withdrew Relyvrio/Albrioza (sodium phenylbutyrate/taurursodiol) from the market in April 2024, after the confirmatory Phase 3 PHOENIX trial failed to show a significant benefit for ALS patients on the drug's primary and secondary endpoints. Rather than waiting for regulators to act, the company chose...
correct
gtdata-clinical-trial-verification-ct08
Clinical Trial Outcomes Verification
clinical_trials
Did tofersen's Phase 3 VALOR trial meet its primary endpoint of change in ALSFRS-R score at week 28, and what were the reported results?
Yes.
getPrimaryOutcomeResults('NCT02623699') returned the exact p=0.9689 analysis directly from the registry's structured statistics — about as unambiguous a 'missed primary endpoint' as a real dataset produces. Second method added this pass: PMID 36129998 is not in the commercially-safe PMC OA subset (checked via pubmed-oa...
[ "https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02623699?tab=results", "https://www.cgtlive.com/view/tofersen-fails-endpoint-familial-als-favorable-trends" ]
judge
medium
[ "clinical-trial", "als", "tofersen", "endpoint-missed" ]
claude-sonnet-5
No, the VALOR trial did not meet statistical significance on its primary endpoint. Tofersen showed a numerically smaller decline in ALSFRS-R than placebo at week 28 (a difference of about 1.2 points on the 48-point scale), but this did not reach statistical significance. However, the trial did show a large, statistical...
correct
gtdata-clinical-trial-verification-ct09
Clinical Trial Outcomes Verification
clinical_trials
In its June 2022 announcement about 12-month tofersen data from VALOR and its open-label extension, how did Ionis/Biogen characterize the drug's clinical effect, and how does that framing compare with VALOR's randomized primary-endpoint outcome?
The registry's actual randomized, placebo-controlled primary endpoint for VALOR (ALSFRS-R change at week 28) was not statistically significant (p=0.9689, see CT08). The 'clinical benefit' framing in this later press release is based on a 1…
This is a genuine, real spin-vs-data gap, not a fabricated gotcha: the June 2022 headline reports on the same VALOR program that missed its randomized primary endpoint eight months earlier (October 2021, see CT08), but frames newer open-label-extension data as clinical benefit without the headline itself flagging that ...
[ "https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02623699?tab=results", "https://ir.ionis.com/news-releases/news-release-details/ionis-partner-biogen-announces-results-phase-3-valor-study-and" ]
judge
hard
[ "clinical-trial", "als", "tofersen", "press-release-spin" ]
claude-sonnet-5
In June 2022, Ionis/Biogen announced that 12-month data (comparing patients who started tofersen earlier in VALOR to those who started it later after entering the open-label extension) showed a "reduction in clinical decline" across multiple measures (ALSFRS-R, respiratory and muscle-strength measures), and they framed...
correct
gtdata-clinical-trial-verification-ct10
Clinical Trial Outcomes Verification
clinical_trials
On what date and under what regulatory pathway did the FDA approve Qalsody (tofersen) for SOD1-ALS, given that the pivotal VALOR trial had missed its primary endpoint?
2023-04-25
getDrugApprovalHistory('QALSODY') confirms the approval one day earlier (April 25) than the press release's stated April 26 date — a minor, expected discrepancy between an FDA internal administrative approval-record date and the company's public announcement date, not a substantive disagreement. The core claim — accele...
[ "https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=overview.process&ApplNo=215887", "https://investors.biogen.com/news-releases/news-release-details/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-qalsodytm-tofersen-sod1-als" ]
judge
medium
[ "fda-approval", "als", "qalsody", "accelerated-approval" ]
claude-sonnet-5
The FDA approved Qalsody (tofersen) on April 25, 2023, using the accelerated approval pathway. Approval was based on the drug's demonstrated reduction of plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) as a surrogate biomarker reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, even though the VALOR trial did not reach statistical s...
correct
gtdata-fda-drug-safety-verification-fds01
FDA Drug / Device Safety Verification
fda_drug_safety
Why was ranitidine (Zantac) recalled from the U.S. market in 2019-2020, and when did the FDA request its complete removal from sale?
openFDA drug/enforcement.json search "product_description:ranitidine" returns 100 real enforcement records. One example, recall_number D-0643-2020 (Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA), reason_for_recall: "CGMP Deviations: Presence of NDMA…
Called fda.searchDrugRecalls('ranitidine') against the live openFDA drug/enforcement.json endpoint. It returned 100 total ranitidine enforcement records; the 5 shown on this page alone span 4 distinct recalling firms (Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA, Mckesson Packaging Services, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Novit...
[ "https://api.fda.gov/drug/enforcement.json?search=product_description%3A%22ranitidine%22&limit=5", "https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-requests-removal-all-ranitidine-products-zantac-market" ]
judge
easy
[ "recall", "ndma", "fda", "zantac" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Ranitidine was recalled because testing found it could contain N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a probable human carcinogen, with levels that could increase over time or when stored at higher temperatures, and could be higher than acceptable limits especially in older stock. Manufacturers began voluntary recalls in 2019,...
correct
gtdata-fda-drug-safety-verification-fds02
FDA Drug / Device Safety Verification
fda_drug_safety
Starting in mid-2020, why did several generic drug manufacturers recall specific lots of metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets?
Of 137 live recall records matching reason_for_recall:"NDMA", 10 shown here are metformin ER recalls; example D-1349-2020 (Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC), reason_for_recall: "CGMP Deviations: FDA analysis detected N-Nitrosodimeth…
Queried fda.searchDrugRecalls('reason_for_recall:NDMA') live and filtered the 137 results client-side for product_description containing "metformin" — found 10 distinct metformin extended-release recall records in this single page alone (Teva Pharmaceuticals USA D-1331-2020; Marksans Pharma Limited D-1356-2020; Amneal ...
[ "https://api.fda.gov/drug/enforcement.json?search=reason_for_recall%3ANDMA&limit=30", "https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-updates-and-press-announcements-ndma-metformin" ]
judge
medium
[ "recall", "ndma", "metformin", "2020s" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Several manufacturers (including Apotex, Amneal, Marksans, and others) recalled specific lots of extended-release metformin after FDA testing found levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a probable human carcinogen, above the acceptable daily intake limit. This was part of a broader wave of NDMA contamination concern...
correct
gtdata-fda-drug-safety-verification-fds03
FDA Drug / Device Safety Verification
fda_drug_safety
Beginning in 2018, why were valsartan-containing blood pressure medications recalled by multiple manufacturers, and what was the underlying source of the problem?
openFDA drug/enforcement.json search "valsartan" returns 137 live records; example D-0332-2019 (Mylan Laboratories Limited, (Nashik FDF)), reason_for_recall: "GCMP Deviations: FDA analysis confirmed presence of trace amounts of an impurity…
Called fda.searchDrugRecalls('valsartan') live: 137 total enforcement records. D-0332-2019 (Mylan Laboratories Limited, (Nashik FDF)) cites reason_for_recall "GCMP Deviations: FDA analysis confirmed presence of trace amounts of an impurity, N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) found in the API used to manufacture the product."...
[ "https://api.fda.gov/drug/enforcement.json?search=product_description%3A%22valsartan%22&limit=5", "https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-updates-and-press-announcements-angiotensin-ii-receptor-blocker-arb-recalls-valsartan" ]
judge
medium
[ "recall", "nitrosamine", "valsartan", "supply-chain" ]
claude-sonnet-5
The 2018 valsartan recalls stemmed from contamination of the active pharmaceutical ingredient with nitrosamine impurities—primarily N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and later N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA)—which are probable human carcinogens. The contamination originated at certain generic API manufacturers, most notably C...
correct
gtdata-fda-drug-safety-verification-fds04
FDA Drug / Device Safety Verification
fda_drug_safety
What health issue was linked to EzriCare and Delsam Pharma Artificial Tears eye drops (made by Global Pharma Healthcare) that were recalled in February 2023?
openFDA drug/enforcement.json confirms 2 EzriCare recall records; D-0919-2023 is classification Class I, reason_for_recall: "Non-Sterility: FDA analysis found unopened products to have bacterial contamination.", recall_initiation_date 2023…
fda.searchDrugRecalls('EzriCare') returned 2 live records, including D-0919-2023 (Class I — FDA's most severe hazard classification) with reason_for_recall "Non-Sterility: FDA analysis found unopened products to have bacterial contamination." (non-sterility/bacterial contamination), consistent with the CDC's separately...
[ "https://api.fda.gov/drug/enforcement.json?search=product_description%3A%22EzriCare%22&limit=5", "https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-alerts-and-statements/fda-warns-consumers-not-purchase-or-use-ezricare-artificial-tears-due-potential-contamination" ]
judge
easy
[ "recall", "outbreak", "eye-drops", "2020s" ]
claude-sonnet-5
These recalled eye drops were linked to a multi-state outbreak of drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections (a strain resistant to nearly all antibiotics), which caused serious harm including vision loss, bloodstream infections, and several deaths across the United States.
correct
gtdata-fda-drug-safety-verification-fds05
FDA Drug / Device Safety Verification
fda_drug_safety
Why did Abbott recall Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare powdered infant formula produced at its Sturgis, Michigan plant in February 2022?
openFDA drug/enforcement.json search "product_description:Similac" returns found:false, "No matches found!".
Searched fda.searchDrugRecalls('product_description:Similac') live: zero matches (No matches found!). This is a genuine, structural coverage gap, not a sign the recall didn't happen — infant formula is regulated by FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) as a FOOD product, not a drug or device, so it...
[ "https://api.fda.gov/drug/enforcement.json?search=product_description%3ASimilac&limit=5", "https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/questions-and-answers-fdas-recall-abbotts-similac-alimentum-and-elecare-powder-formulas" ]
judge
medium
[ "recall", "infant-formula", "scope-boundary", "cronobacter" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Abbott recalled these products after several infants who consumed formula from the Sturgis plant fell ill with Cronobacter sakazakii or Salmonella infections, and inspectors found evidence of Cronobacter contamination at the facility. At least a few infant deaths were later linked to the illnesses, and the plant was sh...
correct
gtdata-fda-drug-safety-verification-fds06
FDA Drug / Device Safety Verification
fda_drug_safety
What contaminant or defect actually caused the 2020 recall and market withdrawal of Zantac (ranitidine)?
Recall D-0643-2020's live reason_for_recall field reads "CGMP Deviations: Presence of NDMA impurity detected in product." — an NDMA chemical-impurity finding, not a bacterial contamination finding.
This row deliberately tests a plausible-sounding but wrong mechanism claim. The real, live reason_for_recall text for D-0643-2020 and every other ranitidine enforcement record returned by fda.searchDrugRecalls('ranitidine') cites NDMA (N-nitrosodimethylamine), a chemical impurity that can form during storage/manufactur...
[ "https://api.fda.gov/drug/enforcement.json?search=product_description%3A%22ranitidine%22&limit=5", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranitidine (paraphrased misattribution used as a test claim; the article itself correctly names NDMA)" ]
exact
easy
[ "recall", "ndma", "false-claim", "zantac" ]
claude-sonnet-5
The 2020 recalls were driven by findings that ranitidine could form N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a probable human carcinogen — the concern being that NDMA levels could increase over time (especially with storage at higher temperatures) or could form when ranitidine broke down, including potentially inside the body. T...
correct
gtdata-fda-drug-safety-verification-fds07
FDA Drug / Device Safety Verification
fda_drug_safety
During 2020, what toxic substance did FDA testing find in numerous recalled hand sanitizer products?
openFDA drug/enforcement.json search "reason_for_recall:methanol" returns 96 live enforcement records across many distinct recalling firms.
Called fda.searchDrugRecalls('reason_for_recall:methanol') live: 96 total matching enforcement records, well over "dozens," from distinct firms including Albek De Mexico S.A. De C.V., SG24 LLC, Aroma Release Technologies Inc. Sample reason_for_recall text: "CGMP Deviations: Next Advanced Antibacterial Hand Sanitizer wa...
[ "https://api.fda.gov/drug/enforcement.json?search=reason_for_recall%3Amethanol&limit=10", "https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-updates-hand-sanitizers-methanol" ]
exact
easy
[ "recall", "methanol", "hand-sanitizer", "2020s" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Isopropyl alcohol contaminated products aside, the main issue was methanol (wood alcohol) contamination — FDA found numerous hand sanitizers, largely manufactured in Mexico, contaminated with toxic methanol instead of (or alongside) the intended ethanol/isopropyl alcohol, leading to a wave of recalls in 2020.
correct
gtdata-fda-drug-safety-verification-fds08
FDA Drug / Device Safety Verification
fda_drug_safety
In June 2021, how many CPAP, BiPAP, and mechanical ventilator devices did Philips Respironics recall worldwide, and what was the reason for the recall?
Live record Z-1972-2021 (Philips Respironics, Inc.): product_quantity "15,357,775 (10,307,186 in US, 5,039,748 OUS) in total", classification Class I, reason_for_recall: "The polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR) foam may degrade into part…
Looked up recall_number Z-1972-2021 directly via fda.searchDeviceRecalls('recall_number:"Z-1972-2021"') live (first located via a broader reason_for_recall:foam search in prior exploratory queries this session). product_quantity field literally reads "15,357,775 (10,307,186 in US, 5,039,748 OUS) in total" — matching th...
[ "https://api.fda.gov/device/enforcement.json?search=recall_number%3A%22Z-1972-2021%22&limit=1", "https://www.propublica.org/article/philips-respironics-cpap-recall-faqs" ]
numeric
hard
[ "recall", "device", "philips", "class-i" ]
claude-sonnet-5
In June 2021, Philips Respironics recalled approximately 3.5 million (some later figures cite around 5.5 million globally including later expansions) CPAP, BiPAP, and mechanical ventilator devices. The recall was due to a sound-abatement polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR) foam used to reduce noise in the devices, wh...
hallucinated
gtdata-fda-drug-safety-verification-fds09
FDA Drug / Device Safety Verification
fda_drug_safety
Did the June 2021 Philips Respironics recall action also include Trilogy ventilators used by patients dependent on mechanical ventilation, or was it limited to CPAP/BiPAP sleep-therapy devices?
Yes.
Queried device enforcement records filed by Philips Respironics on the same recall_initiation_date (2021-06-14) as the larger DreamStation recall and found Z-1956-2021, product_description "Trilogy 100, Trilogy 200, Garbin Plus, Aeris, LifeVent Continuous Ventilators." — confirming Trilogy ventilators (genuinely life-s...
[ "https://api.fda.gov/device/enforcement.json?search=recalling_firm%3A%22Philips+Respironics%22+AND+recall_initiation_date%3A20210614&limit=10", "https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/update-certain-philips-respironics-ventilators-bipap-machines-and-cpap-machines-recalled-due" ]
judge
medium
[ "recall", "device", "philips", "ventilator" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Yes — the June 2021 recall (and the related FDA safety communication) covered Trilogy 100/200 ventilators as well as the CPAP/BiPAP devices; it wasn't limited to sleep-therapy machines. The recalled population included both life-sustaining/mechanical ventilators (like the Trilogy series) and various CPAP/BiPAP models, ...
correct
gtdata-fda-drug-safety-verification-fds10
FDA Drug / Device Safety Verification
fda_drug_safety
Why did Boston Scientific recall a subset of its ACCOLADE family of pacemakers and CRT-Ps built before September 2018?
Live record Z-0823-2025: reason_for_recall "A subset of devices from the ACCOLADE Family of Pacemakers and CRT-Ps, built before September 2018, have an increased potential to initiate Safety Mode during telemetry or other normal, higher-po…
Looked up recall_number Z-0823-2025 directly via fda.searchDeviceRecalls('recall_number:"Z-0823-2025"') live (first located via a broader Boston Scientific/Class I search in prior exploratory queries this session). reason_for_recall reads "A subset of devices from the ACCOLADE Family of Pacemakers and CRT-Ps, built bef...
[ "https://api.fda.gov/device/enforcement.json?search=recall_number%3A%22Z-0823-2025%22&limit=1", "https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/medical-device-recalls-and-early-alerts/pacemaker-correction-boston-scientific-issues-correction-accolade-pacemakers-and-crt-ps" ]
judge
hard
[ "recall", "device", "pacemaker", "battery" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Boston Scientific recalled certain ACCOLADE (and related MRI-conditional) pacemakers and CRT-Ps made before September 21, 2018 because a manufacturing/component issue could cause premature battery depletion (a "Real Time Clock" or crystal oscillator circuit defect), which could lead to loss of pacing/therapy with littl...
hallucinated
gtdata-drug-indication-verification-rxi000001
Drug Indication Grounding
drug_indications
Name one condition that metformin hydrochloride may be indicated to treat, according to MED-RT.
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2
Fetched live from RxClass API; metformin hydrochloride has 1 documented may_treat relationship(s).
[ "https://rxnav.nlm.nih.gov/REST/rxclass/class/byDrugName.json?drugName=metformin&relaSource=MEDRT&relas=may_treat" ]
set_match
hard
[ "drug-safety", "indication", "rxnorm", "med-rt" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Type 2 diabetes
correct
gtdata-drug-indication-verification-rxi000002
Drug Indication Grounding
drug_indications
Name one condition that metformin may be indicated to treat, according to MED-RT.
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2
Fetched live from RxClass API; metformin has 1 documented may_treat relationship(s).
[ "https://rxnav.nlm.nih.gov/REST/rxclass/class/byDrugName.json?drugName=metformin&relaSource=MEDRT&relas=may_treat" ]
set_match
hard
[ "drug-safety", "indication", "rxnorm", "med-rt" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
correct
gtdata-drug-indication-verification-rxi000003
Drug Indication Grounding
drug_indications
Name one condition that lisinopril anhydrous may be indicated to treat, according to MED-RT.
Diabetic Nephropathies
Fetched live from RxClass API; lisinopril anhydrous has 5 documented may_treat relationship(s).
[ "https://rxnav.nlm.nih.gov/REST/rxclass/class/byDrugName.json?drugName=lisinopril&relaSource=MEDRT&relas=may_treat" ]
set_match
hard
[ "drug-safety", "indication", "rxnorm", "med-rt" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Hypertension
correct
gtdata-drug-indication-verification-rxi000004
Drug Indication Grounding
drug_indications
Name one condition that lisinopril may be indicated to treat, according to MED-RT.
Diabetic Nephropathies
Fetched live from RxClass API; lisinopril has 5 documented may_treat relationship(s).
[ "https://rxnav.nlm.nih.gov/REST/rxclass/class/byDrugName.json?drugName=lisinopril&relaSource=MEDRT&relas=may_treat" ]
set_match
hard
[ "drug-safety", "indication", "rxnorm", "med-rt" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Hypertension
correct
gtdata-drug-indication-verification-rxi000005
Drug Indication Grounding
drug_indications
Name one condition that atorvastatin calcium trihydrate may be indicated to treat, according to MED-RT.
Coronary Artery Disease
Fetched live from RxClass API; atorvastatin calcium trihydrate has 4 documented may_treat relationship(s).
[ "https://rxnav.nlm.nih.gov/REST/rxclass/class/byDrugName.json?drugName=atorvastatin&relaSource=MEDRT&relas=may_treat" ]
set_match
hard
[ "drug-safety", "indication", "rxnorm", "med-rt" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Hyperlipidemia
hallucinated
gtdata-drug-indication-verification-rxi000006
Drug Indication Grounding
drug_indications
Name one condition that atorvastatin calcium propylene glycol solvate may be indicated to treat, according to MED-RT.
Coronary Artery Disease
Fetched live from RxClass API; atorvastatin calcium propylene glycol solvate has 4 documented may_treat relationship(s).
[ "https://rxnav.nlm.nih.gov/REST/rxclass/class/byDrugName.json?drugName=atorvastatin&relaSource=MEDRT&relas=may_treat" ]
set_match
hard
[ "drug-safety", "indication", "rxnorm", "med-rt" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Hypercholesterolemia
correct
gtdata-drug-indication-verification-rxi000007
Drug Indication Grounding
drug_indications
Name one condition that atorvastatin calcium anhydrous may be indicated to treat, according to MED-RT.
Coronary Artery Disease
Fetched live from RxClass API; atorvastatin calcium anhydrous has 4 documented may_treat relationship(s).
[ "https://rxnav.nlm.nih.gov/REST/rxclass/class/byDrugName.json?drugName=atorvastatin&relaSource=MEDRT&relas=may_treat" ]
set_match
hard
[ "drug-safety", "indication", "rxnorm", "med-rt" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Hyperlipidemia
hallucinated
gtdata-drug-indication-verification-rxi000008
Drug Indication Grounding
drug_indications
Name one condition that atorvastatin calcium may be indicated to treat, according to MED-RT.
Coronary Artery Disease
Fetched live from RxClass API; atorvastatin calcium has 4 documented may_treat relationship(s).
[ "https://rxnav.nlm.nih.gov/REST/rxclass/class/byDrugName.json?drugName=atorvastatin&relaSource=MEDRT&relas=may_treat" ]
set_match
hard
[ "drug-safety", "indication", "rxnorm", "med-rt" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Hyperlipidemia
hallucinated
gtdata-drug-indication-verification-rxi000009
Drug Indication Grounding
drug_indications
Name one condition that atorvastatin may be indicated to treat, according to MED-RT.
Coronary Artery Disease
Fetched live from RxClass API; atorvastatin has 4 documented may_treat relationship(s).
[ "https://rxnav.nlm.nih.gov/REST/rxclass/class/byDrugName.json?drugName=atorvastatin&relaSource=MEDRT&relas=may_treat" ]
set_match
hard
[ "drug-safety", "indication", "rxnorm", "med-rt" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Hyperlipidemia
hallucinated
gtdata-drug-indication-verification-rxi000010
Drug Indication Grounding
drug_indications
Name one condition that amlodipine besylate may be indicated to treat, according to MED-RT.
Angina Pectoris, Variant
Fetched live from RxClass API; amlodipine besylate has 3 documented may_treat relationship(s).
[ "https://rxnav.nlm.nih.gov/REST/rxclass/class/byDrugName.json?drugName=amlodipine&relaSource=MEDRT&relas=may_treat" ]
set_match
hard
[ "drug-safety", "indication", "rxnorm", "med-rt" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Hypertension
correct
gtdata-code-execution-verification-cx01
Code Execution Verification
code_execution
When Python's sorted() or list.sort() is applied using a key that produces ties, what happens to the relative order of the tied elements compared to their order in the original input?
[(0, 'b'), (0, 'd'), (1, 'a'), (1, 'c')]
Ran, right now (Python 3.12.3): sorted([(1,'a'),(0,'b'),(1,'c'),(0,'d')], key=lambda x: x[0]). Real output: [(0, 'b'), (0, 'd'), (1, 'a'), (1, 'c')]. The two key=0 elements ('b' then 'd') and the two key=1 elements ('a' then 'c') both keep their original input order after sorting purely by the first tuple element — dir...
[ "https://docs.python.org/3/howto/sorting.html#sort-stability-and-complexity" ]
exact
medium
[ "python", "sorting", "stability", "timsort" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Python's sort is stable, so tied elements (equal keys) retain their original relative order from the input — this is guaranteed by the language, not an implementation detail.
correct
gtdata-code-execution-verification-cx02
Code Execution Verification
code_execution
According to the ECMAScript specification, is JavaScript's Array.prototype.sort() required to be a stable sort, and do modern engines like V8/Node actually implement it that way?
[[0,"b"],[0,"d"],[1,"a"],[1,"c"]]
Ran, right now (Node v24.18.0, V8's TimSort-based implementation): the JS analog of the Python test above — [[1,'a'],[0,'b'],[1,'c'],[0,'d']].sort((a,b)=>a[0]-b[0]). Real output: [[0,"b"],[0,"d"],[1,"a"],[1,"c"]]. Same result pattern as CX01: elements with equal sort keys keep their original relative order. Worth notin...
[ "https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-array.prototype.sort" ]
exact
medium
[ "javascript", "sorting", "stability", "ecmascript" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Yes — the ECMAScript spec has required Array.prototype.sort() to be stable since ES2019. Before that it was implementation-defined, but all major modern engines (V8/Node, SpiderMonkey, JavaScriptCore) now implement it as a stable sort in practice (V8 has used TimSort for this since around Node 11/V8 7.0).
correct
gtdata-code-execution-verification-cx03
Code Execution Verification
code_execution
When JavaScript's Array.prototype.sort() is called with no comparator function, how does it order the elements of an array, and what would calling it on [10, 1, 2] produce?
[1,10,2]
Ran, right now (Node v24.18.0): [10, 1, 2].sort() with no comparator argument. Real output: [1,10,2] — confirms the claim exactly: 10 sorts before 2 because the default comparator converts each element to a string ('10' < '2' lexicographically, since '1' < '2') rather than comparing numerically. This is a genuinely com...
[ "https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Array/sort" ]
exact
easy
[ "javascript", "sorting", "gotcha" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Array.prototype.sort() with no comparator converts elements to strings and sorts them by UTF-16 code unit values (lexicographic/dictionary order), not numeric order. So [10, 1, 2] becomes ["10", "1", "2"] as strings, sorted lexicographically to ["1", "10", "2"], giving the result [1, 10, 2].
correct
gtdata-code-execution-verification-cx04
Code Execution Verification
code_execution
In Python, which direction does the // floor-division operator round toward for negative results, and what is the result of -7 // 2?
-4 3 3
Ran, right now (Python 3.12.3): print(-7 // 2, 7 // 2, -7 // -2). Real output: "-4 3 3" (space-separated: -7//2, 7//2, -7//-2). -7 // 2 = -4, confirming floor (round-toward-negative-infinity) semantics — -3.5 floors to -4, not truncates to -3. Positive-operand case (7//2=3) and same-sign-negative case (-7//-2=3) shown ...
[ "https://docs.python.org/3/reference/expressions.html#binary-arithmetic-operations" ]
numeric
easy
[ "python", "division", "arithmetic" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Python's `//` floor-division rounds toward negative infinity (not toward zero), so it always rounds down. Thus `-7 // 2` equals `-4` (since -3.5 rounds down to -4).
correct
gtdata-code-execution-verification-cx05
Code Execution Verification
code_execution
How do Python's % operator and JavaScript's % operator differ in the sign of the result they return for negative operands, and what would each language produce for 5 % -3?
python3: -1 1 | node: 2 -2
Ran the identical expression 5 % -3 (and -5 % 3 for symmetry) in both real interpreters. Python3 (Python 3.12.3) real output: "-1 1" — 5 % -3 = -1 (sign of divisor -3), -5 % 3 = 1 (sign of divisor 3). Node (v24.18.0) real output: "2 -2" — 5 % -3 = 2 (sign of dividend 5), -5 % 3 = -2 (sign of dividend -5). CORRECTION (2...
[ "https://docs.python.org/3/reference/expressions.html#binary-arithmetic-operations" ]
numeric
medium
[ "python", "javascript", "modulo", "cross-language" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Python's `%` always returns a result with the same sign as the divisor, while JavaScript's `%` (which is a remainder operator, not true modulo) returns a result with the same sign as the dividend. So for `5 % -3`: Python gives `-1` (sign matches the -3 divisor), while JavaScript gives `2` (sign matches the 5 dividend).
correct
gtdata-code-execution-verification-cx06
Code Execution Verification
code_execution
What is the largest safe integer value in JavaScript's Number type (i.e., Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER), and how does JavaScript's precision for large integers compare to Python's native int type, which has arbitrary precision?
node: true 9007199254740991 | python3: 2**200 + 1 - 2**200 = 1
Ran, right now. Node (v24.18.0): 9007199254740993 === 9007199254740992 evaluates to "true" (true) because both literals round to the same nearest representable IEEE-754 double once parsed, and MAX_SAFE_INTEGER reports as 9007199254740991. Python3 (Python 3.12.3): 2**200 + 1 - 2**200 (a number ~1.6e60, vastly beyond any...
[ "https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Number/MAX_SAFE_INTEGER" ]
exact
medium
[ "javascript", "python", "integers", "precision" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER in JavaScript is 2^53 − 1, which equals 9,007,199,254,740,991. This limit exists because JavaScript's Number type uses IEEE 754 double-precision floating point, which can only represent integers exactly up to that value (beyond it, some integers can't be represented uniquely). Python's native in...
correct
gtdata-code-execution-verification-cx07
Code Execution Verification
code_execution
Does the expression 0.1 + 0.2 evaluate to exactly 0.3 in Python and JavaScript, and if not, what value does it actually produce in each language?
Yes.
Ran, right now. Python3 (Python 3.12.3) real output: "False 0.30000000000000004" — 0.1+0.2==0.3 is False, and 0.1+0.2 actually equals 0.30000000000000004. Node (v24.18.0) real output: "false 0.30000000000000004" — identical result, 0.1+0.2===0.3 is false, value 0.30000000000000004. Confirms this is not a language-speci...
[ "https://0.30000000000000004.com/" ]
numeric
easy
[ "floating-point", "python", "javascript" ]
claude-sonnet-5
No, in both languages 0.1 + 0.2 does not equal exactly 0.3 due to floating-point representation error (both use IEEE 754 double-precision floats). In Python it evaluates to 0.30000000000000004, and JavaScript produces the same value, 0.30000000000000004.
correct
gtdata-code-execution-verification-cx08
Code Execution Verification
code_execution
How do Python and JavaScript each handle division by zero — does either language raise an exception, and if not, what value(s) does it return?
python3: ZeroDivisionError: division by zero | node: Infinity -Infinity NaN
Ran, right now. Python3 (Python 3.12.3): 1/0 in a try/except; real output: "ZeroDivisionError: division by zero" — a genuine raised ZeroDivisionError, program flow interrupted unless caught. Node (v24.18.0): console.log(1/0, -1/0, 0/0); real output: "Infinity -Infinity NaN" — no exception at all, three distinct non-thr...
[ "https://docs.python.org/3/library/exceptions.html#ZeroDivisionError" ]
exact
easy
[ "python", "javascript", "division", "exceptions" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Python raises a `ZeroDivisionError` exception for `n/0` (both integer and float division). JavaScript, using IEEE 754 floating-point arithmetic, does not raise an exception: `1/0` returns `Infinity`, `-1/0` returns `-Infinity`, and `0/0` returns `NaN`.
correct
gtdata-code-execution-verification-cx09
Code Execution Verification
code_execution
How do Python's len() function on a string and JavaScript's String.prototype.length property differ in what unit they use to count a string's size, and what do each report for the length of a single emoji character like 😀 that lies outside the Basic Multilingual Plane?
python3 len: 1 | node .length / [...str].length: 2 1
Ran, right now, on the literal grinning-face emoji U+1F600. Python3 (Python 3.12.3): len('😀') real output: "1" — Python 3 strings are sequences of Unicode codepoints, so this counts as exactly one character. Node (v24.18.0): '😀'.length vs [...'😀'].length real output: "2 1" — .length reports 2 (UTF-16 surrogate pair,...
[ "https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/String/length" ]
numeric
medium
[ "python", "javascript", "unicode", "strings" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Python's `len()` on a string counts Unicode code points, while JavaScript's `.length` counts UTF-16 code units. For 😀 (U+1F600), which lies outside the BMP and requires a UTF-16 surrogate pair, Python's `len("😀")` returns 1, while JavaScript's `"😀".length` returns 2.
correct
gtdata-code-execution-verification-cx10
Code Execution Verification
code_execution
In Python, does indexing a list out of range (e.g., accessing index 5 of a 3-element list) behave the same way as slicing a list out of range (e.g., a[1:10])? What error or result does each produce?
IndexError: list index out of range [2, 3] []
Ran, right now (Python 3.12.3) on a=[1,2,3]. Real output: IndexError: list index out of range [2, 3] [] Direct index a[5] raises IndexError as expected. But a[1:10] silently clamps to [2, 3] (returns whatever exists in range, no error) and a[10:20] silently returns [] (an empty list) rather than raising anything — conf...
[ "https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/introduction.html#lists" ]
exact
medium
[ "python", "lists", "indexerror", "slicing" ]
claude-sonnet-5
No, they behave differently. Out-of-range indexing (e.g., `a[5]` on a 3-element list) raises an `IndexError: list index out of range`. Out-of-range slicing (e.g., `a[1:10]`) does not raise an error — it just clamps the bounds to the list's actual length and returns whatever elements exist in that range (an empty list i...
correct
gtdata-code-reality-verification-cr1
Code Reality Verification
code_reality
In lodash 4.17.21, what parameters does the `_.chunk` function accept, and does it include a third parameter?
Confirmed against the real published npm tarball: package/chunk.js line 30 defines `function chunk(array, size, guard) {`, matching the claimed three-parameter signature exactly. SECOND METHOD (dynamic execution, this session): actually ra…
Model states _.chunk has no third parameter, directly contradicting the confirmed ground truth that chunk(array, size, guard) has a third guard parameter.
[ "https://registry.npmjs.org/lodash/-/lodash-4.17.21.tgz" ]
judge
easy
[ "npm", "lodash", "parameter-signature", "method-existence" ]
claude-sonnet-5
`_.chunk(array, [size=1])` — it takes an array to split and an optional size for each chunk (defaulting to 1). It does not have a third parameter in lodash 4.17.21.
hallucinated
gtdata-code-reality-verification-cr2
Code Reality Verification
code_reality
In lodash 4.17.21, what parameters does the `_.debounce` function accept?
Confirmed: package/debounce.js defines `function debounce(func, wait, options) {`, matching the claimed signature. SECOND METHOD (dynamic execution, this session): installed lodash 4.17.21 for real and ran `_.debounce(fn, 50, { leading: tr…
Correctly describes debounce(func, wait, options) signature including leading/trailing/maxWait, matching ground truth.
[ "https://registry.npmjs.org/lodash/-/lodash-4.17.21.tgz" ]
judge
easy
[ "npm", "lodash", "parameter-signature", "options-object" ]
claude-sonnet-5
`_.debounce(func, [wait=0], [options={})` — it takes the function to debounce, an optional wait time in milliseconds, and an optional options object. The options object can include `leading` (boolean, invoke on the leading edge), `trailing` (boolean, invoke on the trailing edge), and `maxWait` (the maximum time the fun...
correct
gtdata-code-reality-verification-cr3
Code Reality Verification
code_reality
Does lodash 4.17.21 include a function named `flattenDeeply` (or any alias by that name) for deep array flattening?
No.
Correctly states flattenDeeply does not exist and flattenDeep is the real function, matching the false verdict in ground truth.
[ "https://registry.npmjs.org/lodash/-/lodash-4.17.21.tgz" ]
exact
easy
[ "npm", "lodash", "nonexistent-api", "hallucination" ]
claude-sonnet-5
No — lodash 4.17.21 does not have a `flattenDeeply` function or alias. Its deep-flatten API is `_.flattenDeep`, alongside `_.flatten` (one level) and `_.flattenDepth` (specified depth).
correct
gtdata-code-reality-verification-cr4
Code Reality Verification
code_reality
In Express 4.18.2, what does calling `app.listen(...)` return?
Confirmed: lib/application.js defines `app.listen = function listen() { var server = http.createServer(this); return server.listen.apply(server, arguments); };` — the function explicitly returns the server object. SECOND METHOD (dynamic ex…
Correctly states app.listen returns an http.Server instance, matching ground truth.
[ "https://registry.npmjs.org/express/-/express-4.18.2.tgz" ]
exact
medium
[ "npm", "express", "return-value", "http-server" ]
claude-sonnet-5
`app.listen()` in Express 4.x is just a thin wrapper around Node's `http.createServer(app).listen(...)`, so it returns an `http.Server` instance.
correct
gtdata-code-reality-verification-cr5
Code Reality Verification
code_reality
Does Express 5.0.0 still include an `app.del()` method (as a deprecated alias for `app.delete()`), or was it removed?
No.
Correctly states app.del was removed entirely in Express 5.0.0, matching ground truth verdict of false (not merely deprecated).
[ "https://registry.npmjs.org/express/-/express-5.0.0.tgz" ]
judge
medium
[ "npm", "express", "removal", "deprecation" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Express 5.0.0 removed `app.del()` entirely — it was a deprecated alias for `app.delete()` in Express 4.x (added because `delete` was a reserved word in old JS engines), but Express 5 dropped it since it's no longer needed on modern JavaScript engines. You must use `app.delete()` in Express 5.
correct
gtdata-code-reality-verification-cr6
Code Reality Verification
code_reality
Does axios 1.6.0 provide a named export called `AxiosError` for its error class?
Yes.
Correctly confirms AxiosError is available as a named export in axios 1.6.0, matching ground truth.
[ "https://registry.npmjs.org/axios/-/axios-1.6.0.tgz" ]
exact
easy
[ "npm", "axios", "named-export", "error-handling" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Yes. Axios 1.6.0's default export exposes `axios.AxiosError`, and the package also provides `AxiosError` as a named ES module export (e.g., `import { AxiosError } from 'axios'`), consistent with axios's TypeScript-friendly named exports introduced in earlier v1.x releases.
correct
gtdata-code-reality-verification-cr7
Code Reality Verification
code_reality
In axios version 0.21.1, what mechanism does the library expose for cancelling an in-flight HTTP request?
Confirmed: package/lib/axios.js contains `axios.CancelToken = require('./cancel/CancelToken');`, and package/lib/cancel/CancelToken.js exists as a real file in the published tarball. SECOND METHOD (dynamic execution, this session): install…
Matches ground truth exactly: CancelToken.source(), token in config, source.cancel(), predates AbortController.
[ "https://registry.npmjs.org/axios/-/axios-0.21.1.tgz" ]
exact
easy
[ "npm", "axios", "cancellation", "pre-abortcontroller" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Axios 0.21.1 uses the (now-legacy) CancelToken API: you create a `CancelToken.source()`, pass its `token` in the request config, and later call `source.cancel(message)` to abort the request. This predates the newer `AbortController`/`signal` support that was added in later axios versions.
correct
gtdata-code-reality-verification-cr8
Code Reality Verification
code_reality
In commander 11.1.0, what method on the Command class lets you inject custom text before or after the built-in help output, and what parameters does it take?
Confirmed: lib/command.js defines `addHelpText(position, text) {`, matching the claimed two-argument signature, with position validated a few lines later against an allowed-values list. SECOND METHOD (dynamic execution, this session): inst…
Correctly states addHelpText(position, text) with matching position values and text semantics as confirmed in source.
[ "https://registry.npmjs.org/commander/-/commander-11.1.0.tgz" ]
judge
medium
[ "npm", "commander", "parameter-signature", "cli" ]
claude-sonnet-5
In Commander.js 11.1.0, the method is `Command.addHelpText(position, text)`. `position` is a string, one of `'beforeAll'`, `'before'`, `'after'`, or `'afterAll'`, and `text` is either a string or a function `(context) => string` (where `context` gives access to things like `error` and `command`) that returns the text t...
correct
gtdata-code-reality-verification-cr9
Code Reality Verification
code_reality
Can chalk version 5.3.0 be loaded with CommonJS `require('chalk')`, or does it require a different module system?
False. chalk 5.3.0's real package.json sets `"type": "module"` and a single-file `"exports": "./source/index.js"` with no CJS conditional or `require` entry point at all — chalk became pure-ESM-only starting at v5, so `require('chalk')` th…
Despite an awkwardly placed leading 'Yes', the substance unambiguously states require('chalk') fails and ESM import is required, matching the false/require-fails ground truth.
[ "https://registry.npmjs.org/chalk/-/chalk-5.3.0.tgz" ]
judge
medium
[ "npm", "chalk", "esm-cjs", "module-system" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Yes. Chalk 5.x switched to being a pure ESM package, so `require('chalk')` will fail in CommonJS — you need `import chalk from 'chalk'` (or a dynamic `import()`) instead. This ESM-only change happened starting with chalk v5, so it applies to 5.3.0 as well.
correct
gtdata-code-reality-verification-cr10
Code Reality Verification
code_reality
In zod 3.22.4, what chainable method on `z.string()` adds email-format validation?
Confirmed: package/lib/index.mjs and package/lib/types.d.ts both define `email(message) { ... }` / `email(message?: errorUtil.ErrMessage): ZodString;` on the string-schema class, and the real README documents exactly `z.string().email()` a…
Correctly identifies .email() as the chainable method, matching confirmed source.
[ "https://registry.npmjs.org/zod/-/zod-3.22.4.tgz" ]
exact
easy
[ "npm", "zod", "validation", "chainable-method" ]
claude-sonnet-5
The chainable method is `.email()`, e.g. `z.string().email()`.
correct
gtdata-companies-house-verification-ch01
Companies House Verification
company_registry
According to UK Companies House records for DeepMind Technologies Limited (company number 07386350), what is Demis Hassabis's directorship history there, including whether he currently holds a director appointment?
HASSABIS, Demis — Director, appointed 7 December 2010, resigned 24 January 2014
Re-confirmed live this session two ways: the free public officers HTML page (original method) and the authenticated /company/{number}/officers JSON REST endpoint (added this pass) — same underlying register, two independently coded parsers, identical appointment and resignation dates from both.
[ "https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07386350/officers" ]
judge
hard
[ "director", "deepmind", "companies-house" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I don't have reliable, verified knowledge of the specific director appointment dates and status listed on Companies House for DeepMind Technologies Limited (company number 07386350). I know Demis Hassabis co-founded DeepMind and has been associated with it as a director, but I can't state the precise appointment/resign...
hedged_correctly
gtdata-companies-house-verification-ch02
Companies House Verification
company_registry
On what date was DeepMind Technologies Limited (company number 07386350) incorporated, according to UK Companies House?
23 September 2010
Re-confirmed live this session two ways: the public company-overview HTML page (original method) and the authenticated /company/{number} JSON REST endpoint's date_of_creation field (added this pass) — identical date from both.
[ "https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07386350" ]
exact
hard
[ "incorporation", "deepmind", "companies-house" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I don't know the exact incorporation date of DeepMind Technologies Limited (company number 07386350) offhand, and I don't want to state a specific-sounding date without confidence. I recall it was incorporated in 2010, but I can't be sure of the precise day and month without checking Companies House directly.
hedged_correctly
gtdata-companies-house-verification-ch03
Companies House Verification
company_registry
What is the current registered company status (e.g., active, dissolved, liquidation) of DeepMind Technologies Limited (company number 07386350) according to UK Companies House?
Active
Re-confirmed live this session two ways: the public company-overview HTML page (original method) and the authenticated /company/{number} JSON REST endpoint's company_status field (added this pass) — identical status from both.
[ "https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07386350" ]
exact
easy
[ "company-status", "deepmind", "companies-house" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I don't know the exact current status with certainty. Historically, DeepMind Technologies Limited (company number 07386350) has shown as "Active" on Companies House, but I can't confirm whether that's still accurate as of today without checking the register directly, so I'd recommend verifying on the Companies House we...
hedged_correctly
gtdata-companies-house-verification-ch04
Companies House Verification
company_registry
What is the current registered company status of DeepMind Dynamics Ltd (company number 15588410) according to UK Companies House?
Dissolved
Re-confirmed live this session two ways: the public company-overview HTML page (original method) and the authenticated /company/{number} JSON REST endpoint's company_status field (added this pass) — identical status from both.
[ "https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/15588410" ]
exact
hard
[ "company-status", "deepmind-dynamics", "companies-house" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I don't have reliable knowledge of this specific company. "DeepMind Dynamics Ltd" with company number 15588410 is not a company I have verified information about, and I can't look up live Companies House records without using search tools, which I've been instructed not to use here. I'd be guessing if I gave you a spec...
hedged_correctly
gtdata-companies-house-verification-ch05
Companies House Verification
company_registry
According to UK Companies House records for Stability AI Ltd (company number 12295325), what is Emad Mostaque's directorship history there, including whether he currently holds a director appointment?
MOSTAQUE, Mohammad Emad — Director, appointed 4 November 2019, resigned 22 March 2024
Re-confirmed live this session two ways: the free public officers HTML page (original method) and the authenticated /company/{number}/officers JSON REST endpoint (added this pass) — same underlying register, two independently coded parsers, identical appointment and resignation dates from both.
[ "https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12295325/officers" ]
judge
medium
[ "director", "stability-ai", "companies-house" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I don't have reliable, verified knowledge of the specific Companies House filing history (exact appointment/resignation dates) for Emad Mostaque at Stability AI Ltd, company number 12295325. What I can say generally is that Mostaque founded Stability AI and served as CEO and a director, then stepped down as CEO in Marc...
hedged_correctly
gtdata-companies-house-verification-ch06
Companies House Verification
company_registry
According to UK Companies House records for Stability AI Ltd (company number 12295325), what is Prem Akkaraju's directorship history there, including whether he currently holds a director appointment?
AKKARAJU, Prem Kumar — Director, appointed 23 February 2025, currently active
Re-confirmed live this session two ways: the free public officers HTML page (original method) and the authenticated /company/{number}/officers JSON REST endpoint (added this pass) — same underlying register, two independently coded parsers, identical appointment and resignation dates from both.
[ "https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12295325/officers" ]
judge
medium
[ "director", "stability-ai", "companies-house", "recent" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I don't have reliable, specific knowledge of Prem Akkaraju's exact Companies House appointment dates or history for Stability AI Ltd (12295325) — I can't confirm his director appointment/resignation dates from memory. I do know he became Stability AI's CEO around mid-2024, but I can't state with confidence the precise ...
hedged_correctly
gtdata-companies-house-verification-ch07
Companies House Verification
company_registry
On what date was Stability AI Ltd (company number 12295325) incorporated, according to UK Companies House?
4 November 2019
Re-confirmed live this session two ways: the public company-overview HTML page (original method) and the authenticated /company/{number} JSON REST endpoint's date_of_creation field (added this pass) — identical date from both.
[ "https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12295325" ]
exact
hard
[ "incorporation", "stability-ai", "companies-house" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I don't have reliable knowledge of the specific Companies House incorporation date for company number 12295325 (Stability AI Ltd). I recall Stability AI was founded around 2019-2020, but I can't state the exact incorporation date with confidence without checking the Companies House register directly, and I don't want t...
hedged_correctly
gtdata-companies-house-verification-ch08
Companies House Verification
company_registry
Does UK Companies House have a registered company matching the name 'Character Technologies UK Limited,' and if such a company can be confidently identified, is Noam Shazeer listed among its directors?
no confident match for "Character Technologies UK Limited" in Companies House search — closest hit was "CHARACTER BOATS (UK) LTD" (07953516), which does not look like the same company
Re-run live this session: Companies House's own search still returns no confident match for this company name at all, so there is no company number to run an authenticated-API cross-check against — kept honestly single-method rather than fabricating a second source for a company that doesn't resolve.
[ "https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/search/companies?q=Character%20Technologies%20UK%20Limited" ]
judge
hard
[ "director", "character-ai", "companies-house", "no-match" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I don't have verified access to UK Companies House records, but based on my general knowledge, I'm not aware of a registered UK entity specifically named "Character Technologies UK Limited" (Character.AI's parent company is Character Technologies, Inc., a US/Delaware entity). I cannot confirm with confidence whether su...
hedged_correctly
gtdata-companies-house-verification-ch09
Companies House Verification
company_registry
What is the current registered company status of Synthesia Limited (company number 10933652) according to UK Companies House, and has it ever been recorded as dissolved?
Active
Re-confirmed live this session two ways: the public company-overview HTML page (original method) and the authenticated /company/{number} JSON REST endpoint's company_status field (added this pass) — identical status from both.
[ "https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10933652" ]
exact
medium
[ "company-status", "synthesia", "companies-house" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I don't have verified, current data on this specific company record. Based on general knowledge, Synthesia Limited is a UK-based AI video generation company (well-known startup) with a Companies House registration, but I cannot confirm from memory whether company number 10933652 is correct or what its precise current s...
hedged_correctly
gtdata-companies-house-verification-ch10
Companies House Verification
company_registry
According to UK Companies House records for Wayve Technologies Ltd (company number 10924127), what is Alex Kendall's directorship history there, including whether he currently holds a director appointment?
KENDALL, Alex Guy — Director, appointed 21 August 2017, currently active
Re-confirmed live this session two ways: the free public officers HTML page (original method) and the authenticated /company/{number}/officers JSON REST endpoint (added this pass) — same underlying register, two independently coded parsers, identical appointment and resignation dates from both.
[ "https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10924127/officers" ]
judge
hard
[ "director", "wayve", "companies-house" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I don't have reliable, specific knowledge of Companies House's current filing records for Wayve Technologies Ltd (company number 10924127), including exact dates of Alex Kendall's appointment or any resignation as director. I know he is a co-founder and CEO of Wayve, so it's plausible he holds or has held a director ap...
hedged_correctly
gtdata-sec-edgar-financials-verification-sef01
SEC EDGAR Financial Verification
finance_sec_edgar
What was Apple's total revenue for fiscal year 2024 (the year ended September 28, 2024), as reported in its official SEC filing?
$391,035,000,000 (exact, as filed)
Live SEC EDGAR companyconcept lookup (CIK 0000320193, us-gaap:RevenueFromContractWithCustomerExcludingAssessedTax, fy=2024/fp=FY) returned the actual filed value $391,035,000,000 from the real 10-K filed 2024-11-01 (accession 0000320193-24-000123, period 2023-10-01 to 2024-09-28). Claimed value $391,000,000,000 differs...
[ "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000032019324000123/0000320193-24-000123-index.htm", "https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/10/apple-reports-fourth-quarter-results/" ]
numeric
easy
[ "apple", "revenue", "fy2024", "tech" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Apple reported total net sales of about $391.0 billion for fiscal year 2024 (ended September 28, 2024) in its 10-K filing, with net income of roughly $93.7 billion. I recall this with fairly high confidence but wouldn't rule out being off by a small amount on the exact figures.
correct
gtdata-sec-edgar-financials-verification-sef02
SEC EDGAR Financial Verification
finance_sec_edgar
What was Apple's diluted earnings per share for fiscal year 2024 (ended September 28, 2024)?
$6.08 (exact, as filed)
Live SEC EDGAR companyconcept lookup (CIK 0000320193, us-gaap:EarningsPerShareDiluted, fy=2024/fp=FY) returned the actual filed value $6.08 USD/shares from the real 10-K filed 2024-11-01 (accession 0000320193-24-000123, period 2023-10-01 to 2024-09-28). Claimed value $6.08 differs by 0.000% from the actual filed figure...
[ "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000032019324000123/0000320193-24-000123-index.htm" ]
numeric
medium
[ "apple", "eps", "fy2024", "tech" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Apple's diluted earnings per share for fiscal year 2024 (ended September 28, 2024) was $6.08.
correct
gtdata-sec-edgar-financials-verification-sef03
SEC EDGAR Financial Verification
finance_sec_edgar
What was Apple's research and development expense for fiscal year 2025, and how did it compare to fiscal year 2024's R&D spending?
$34,550,000,000 (exact, as filed)
Live SEC EDGAR companyconcept lookup (CIK 0000320193, us-gaap:ResearchAndDevelopmentExpense, fy=2025/fp=FY) returned the actual filed value $34,550,000,000 from the real 10-K filed 2025-10-31 (accession 0000320193-25-000079, period 2024-09-29 to 2025-09-27). Claimed value $34,600,000,000 differs by 0.145% from the actu...
[ "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000032019325000079/0000320193-25-000079-index.htm", "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000032019325000079/" ]
numeric
hard
[ "apple", "rd-spending", "fy2025", "tech" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Apple's R&D expense for fiscal year 2025 was roughly $34–35 billion, up modestly (mid-to-high single digits percent) from about $31.4 billion in fiscal year 2024. I don't have the exact final audited figure memorized with confidence, so treat the FY2025 number as an approximate estimate rather than a precise citation.
hallucinated
gtdata-sec-edgar-financials-verification-sef04
SEC EDGAR Financial Verification
finance_sec_edgar
On what date did Apple file its Form 10-K annual report for fiscal year 2024 with the SEC?
2024-11-01 (per SEC's own submissions index)
Live query to data.sec.gov/submissions/CIK0000320193.json (SEC's own filing-history index, distinct from the companyconcept XBRL-facts API) — found the 10-K with reportDate=2024-09-28 (Apple's FY2024 fiscal year end) at accession 0000320193-24-000123, with SEC's own recorded filingDate of 2024-11-01, exactly matching t...
[ "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000032019324000123/0000320193-24-000123-index.htm", "https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/10/apple-reports-fourth-quarter-results/" ]
exact
medium
[ "apple", "filing-date", "10-k", "tech" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Apple filed its Form 10-K for fiscal year 2024 (fiscal year ended September 28, 2024) with the SEC on November 1, 2024.
correct
gtdata-sec-edgar-financials-verification-sef05
SEC EDGAR Financial Verification
finance_sec_edgar
What was Microsoft's total revenue for fiscal year 2024 (the year ended June 30, 2024)?
$245,122,000,000 (exact, as filed)
Live SEC EDGAR companyconcept lookup (CIK 0000789019, us-gaap:RevenueFromContractWithCustomerExcludingAssessedTax, fy=2024/fp=FY) returned the actual filed value $245,122,000,000 from the real 10-K filed 2024-07-30 (accession 0000950170-24-087843, period 2023-07-01 to 2024-06-30). Claimed value $245,100,000,000 differs...
[ "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000095017024087843/0000950170-24-087843-index.htm", "https://news.microsoft.com/source/2024/07/30/microsoft-cloud-strength-drives-fourth-quarter-results-6/" ]
numeric
easy
[ "microsoft", "revenue", "fy2024", "tech" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Microsoft's total revenue for fiscal year 2024 (ended June 30, 2024) was approximately $245 billion, with net income of around $88 billion. I'm fairly confident in the revenue figure being in the $245-246 billion range, but I'd recommend checking the exact figure from Microsoft's official earnings release if precision ...
correct
gtdata-sec-edgar-financials-verification-sef06
SEC EDGAR Financial Verification
finance_sec_edgar
What was Microsoft's net income for fiscal year 2024?
$88,136,000,000 (exact, as filed)
Live SEC EDGAR companyconcept lookup (CIK 0000789019, us-gaap:NetIncomeLoss, fy=2024/fp=FY) returned the actual filed value $88,136,000,000 from the real 10-K filed 2024-07-30 (accession 0000950170-24-087843, period 2023-07-01 to 2024-06-30). Claimed value $88,100,000,000 differs by 0.041% from the actual filed figure,...
[ "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000095017024087843/0000950170-24-087843-index.htm", "https://news.microsoft.com/source/2024/07/30/microsoft-cloud-strength-drives-fourth-quarter-results-6/" ]
numeric
easy
[ "microsoft", "net-income", "fy2024", "tech" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Microsoft's net income for fiscal year 2024 (ended June 30, 2024) was approximately $88.1 billion.
correct
gtdata-sec-edgar-financials-verification-sef07
SEC EDGAR Financial Verification
finance_sec_edgar
What was Microsoft's diluted earnings per share for fiscal year 2024?
$11.8 (exact, as filed)
Live SEC EDGAR companyconcept lookup (CIK 0000789019, us-gaap:EarningsPerShareDiluted, fy=2024/fp=FY) returned the actual filed value $11.8 USD/shares from the real 10-K filed 2024-07-30 (accession 0000950170-24-087843, period 2023-07-01 to 2024-06-30). Claimed value $11.8 differs by 0.000% from the actual filed figure...
[ "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000095017024087843/0000950170-24-087843-index.htm", "https://news.microsoft.com/source/2024/07/30/microsoft-cloud-strength-drives-fourth-quarter-results-6/" ]
numeric
medium
[ "microsoft", "eps", "fy2024", "tech" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Microsoft's diluted EPS for fiscal year 2024 (ended June 30, 2024) was $11.80.
correct
gtdata-sec-edgar-financials-verification-sef08
SEC EDGAR Financial Verification
finance_sec_edgar
What were Amazon's total net sales for the full year 2024?
$637,959,000,000 (exact, as filed)
Live SEC EDGAR companyconcept lookup (CIK 0001018724, us-gaap:RevenueFromContractWithCustomerExcludingAssessedTax, fy=2024/fp=FY) returned the actual filed value $637,959,000,000 from the real 10-K filed 2025-02-07 (accession 0001018724-25-000004, period 2024-01-01 to 2024-12-31). Claimed value $638,000,000,000 differs...
[ "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000101872425000004/0001018724-25-000004-index.htm", "https://ir.aboutamazon.com/news-release/news-release-details/2025/Amazon-com-Announces-Fourth-Quarter-Results/default.aspx" ]
numeric
easy
[ "amazon", "revenue", "fy2024", "ecommerce" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Amazon reported full-year 2024 net sales of approximately $638 billion (about $637.96 billion), up roughly 11% from 2023.
correct
gtdata-sec-edgar-financials-verification-sef09
SEC EDGAR Financial Verification
finance_sec_edgar
What was Amazon's net income for the full year 2024, and what did that equate to in diluted earnings per share?
$59,248,000,000 (exact, as filed)
Live SEC EDGAR companyconcept lookup (CIK 0001018724, us-gaap:NetIncomeLoss, fy=2024/fp=FY) returned the actual filed value $59,248,000,000 from the real 10-K filed 2025-02-07 (accession 0001018724-25-000004, period 2024-01-01 to 2024-12-31). Claimed value $59,200,000,000 differs by 0.081% from the actual filed figure,...
[ "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000101872425000004/0001018724-25-000004-index.htm", "https://ir.aboutamazon.com/news-release/news-release-details/2025/Amazon-com-Announces-Fourth-Quarter-Results/default.aspx" ]
numeric
easy
[ "amazon", "net-income", "eps", "fy2024" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Amazon reported net income of about $59.2 billion for full-year 2024, which worked out to diluted earnings per share of roughly $5.53.
correct
gtdata-sec-edgar-financials-verification-sef10
SEC EDGAR Financial Verification
finance_sec_edgar
What was Tesla's total revenue for the full year 2024?
$97,690,000,000 (exact, as filed)
Live SEC EDGAR companyconcept lookup (CIK 0001318605, us-gaap:Revenues, fy=2024/fp=FY) returned the actual filed value $97,690,000,000 from the real 10-K filed 2025-01-30 (accession 0001628280-25-003063, period 2024-01-01 to 2024-12-31). Claimed value $97,700,000,000 differs by 0.010% from the actual filed figure, with...
[ "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000162828025003063/0001628280-25-003063-index.htm", "https://ir.tesla.com/press-release/tesla-releases-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2024-financial-results" ]
numeric
easy
[ "tesla", "revenue", "fy2024", "automotive" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Tesla reported full-year 2024 total revenue of approximately $97.7 billion, up modestly (roughly 1%) from about $96.8 billion in 2023.
correct
gtdata-government-contract-verification-gc01
Government Contract Verification
government_contracts
What share of Lockheed Martin Corporation's business or revenue comes from the U.S. Department of Defense and other U.S. federal government agencies?
USASpending's parent-level recipient profile for LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP (recipient_id b97d19b0-833c-8d8f-3a2c-157d04ea55ef-P, UEI ZFN2JJXBLZT3) shows $63,434,163,102.85 in total transactions across 19,172 federal awards. Breaking out a singl…
Not just a majority -- in the most recent fiscal year checked, essentially the entire (99.7%) contract-obligation total traces to DoD specifically, with the parent-level UEI hierarchy (which correctly rolls up real subsidiaries like Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, confirmed by alternate_names on the same profile) showin...
[ "https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient/b97d19b0-833c-8d8f-3a2c-157d04ea55ef-P/latest", "https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/who-we-are.html" ]
numeric
medium
[ "lockheed-martin", "dod", "revenue-share", "sec-edgar" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Roughly 70–75% of Lockheed Martin's revenue comes from the U.S. government, with the vast majority of that from the Department of Defense (the rest from agencies like NASA); the remainder comes from foreign military sales/international customers and a small amount of commercial business.
hallucinated
gtdata-government-contract-verification-gc02
Government Contract Verification
government_contracts
What was the value of the contract Anduril Industries was awarded to develop a Counter Unmanned Aerial System (CUAS)?
searchAwardsByRecipient across every ANDURIL INDUSTRIES, INC. award tagged with COUNTER UNMANNED SYSTEMS / CUxS / dismounted-CUAS language (FY2022-FY2026, sorted by Award Amount) turns up a real, recurring program -- but no single obligate…
The underlying CUAS relationship with DoD is real and substantial -- this isn't a fabricated claim -- but no single USASpending award record documents the specific $200M figure. Consistent with the figure representing an internal program-office estimate or a multi-year ceiling rather than one obligated action; award-le...
[ "https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient/1869c03a-77bb-b66c-469b-988719bbec4c-C/latest", "https://www.anduril.com/news/anduril-industries-awarded-usd200-million-contract-to-develop-counter-unmanned-aerial-system" ]
numeric
medium
[ "anduril", "counter-drone", "army", "ceiling-vs-obligated" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I don't have a confident, specific figure for this. Anduril has received multiple counter-UAS (CUAS) contracts from the U.S. military (e.g., with the Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps) worth varying amounts—some in the tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars—but without knowing exactly which specific co...
hedged_correctly
gtdata-government-contract-verification-gc03
Government Contract Verification
government_contracts
What is the reported ceiling value and term structure of the enterprise agreement the U.S. Army and Anduril entered into in March 2026, how many existing Anduril Army contracts did it consolidate, and what was the dollar value of the first task order issued under it?
The specific first task order is directly confirmed in USASpending: award W9128Z26FA005, $87,713,060.00, Department of the Army, start date 2026-03-16, description "THE ORDER IS IN SUPPORT OF JIATF 401 AND WILL PROVIDE ANDURIL LATTICE PLAT…
Multiple independent outlets (Nextgov/FCW, TechCrunch, Washington Technology, DefenseScoop) consistently and correctly describe the $20B figure as a ceiling the Army is 'under no obligation to fully spend,' not an obligated contract value -- and the claim as sourced here preserves that hedge rather than overstating it....
[ "https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_W9128Z26FA005_9700_W9128Z26DA001_9700", "https://www.nextgov.com/defense/2026/03/army-anduril-enter-new-20b-enterprise-agreement/412153/" ]
judge
hard
[ "anduril", "army", "enterprise-agreement", "2020s" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I don't have reliable, specific knowledge of an "enterprise agreement" between the U.S. Army and Anduril from March 2026 — that's after my training cutoff and I can't verify details like a ceiling value, term length, number of consolidated contracts, or the value of a first task order. I'd be guessing if I gave you spe...
hedged_correctly
gtdata-government-contract-verification-gc04
Government Contract Verification
government_contracts
What is the reported value and duration of the enterprise agreement the U.S. Army awarded Palantir in July 2025, and how many existing Army software contracts did it consolidate?
No single $10B action exists in USASpending (expected, for the same IDV-ceiling reason as GC03). But real, large, rapidly-growing Army task orders under the Palantir corporate family are directly confirmed for FY2025-FY2026 -- all four fil…
Same pattern as GC03: the claim correctly frames $10B as a ceiling, not an obligated amount, and real award-level data confirms Palantir is genuinely and rapidly scaling its direct Army business (nearly $1B in confirmed task orders in the same fiscal window this specific agreement covers). The claim doesn't overreach b...
[ "https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient/1ea8a9a4-3726-3491-9040-66950bb67606-P/latest", "https://defensescoop.com/2025/07/31/army-palantir-software-enterprise-agreement-10-billion/" ]
judge
medium
[ "palantir", "army", "enterprise-agreement", "sec-edgar" ]
claude-sonnet-5
In July 2025, the U.S. Army awarded Palantir an enterprise agreement reported to be worth up to about $10 billion over roughly 10 years, and it was said to consolidate around 75 (give or take, I recall figures cited in the 75-80 range) previously separate Army software contracts/agreements into a single enterprise deal...
correct
gtdata-government-contract-verification-gc06
Government Contract Verification
government_contracts
What is the total estimated value and contract period of the State Department's Global Support Strategy (GSS) 2.0 IDIQ that General Dynamics Information Technology was selected for?
Real, recurring, multi-hundred-million-dollar GSS-branded task orders under GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY confirmed directly: SAQMMA16F3813 ($370,255,922.94, GSS visa services Mexico), SAQMMA11F2559 ($236,616,041.08, GSS Brazil),…
GD's own release properly hedges the $3.3B as an 'up to' estimate over a 10-year ordering period, not an obligated figure. Real GSS and GSS 2.0-named State Department task orders recur at real scale (multiple orders over $200M each) exactly consistent with a company genuinely holding a prime position and drawing meanin...
[ "https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient/455555be-773d-eab1-1e6b-7b94400b757e-C/latest", "https://www.gd.com/Articles/2021/01/22/gdit-awarded-gss-idiq" ]
judge
medium
[ "gdit", "state-department", "idiq", "global-support-strategy" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I don't have reliable information about a specific "Global Support Strategy (GSS) 2.0" IDIQ contract award to General Dynamics Information Technology from the State Department, including its exact dollar value or contract period. I'd be guessing if I gave specific figures, so I can't confidently answer this from memory...
correct
gtdata-government-contract-verification-gc07
Government Contract Verification
government_contracts
What role or position did Peraton claim to have been named to on GSA's OASIS+ contract program, and how many prime contractors does that program actually have?
Peraton's own real USASpending IDV record for this program is award 47QRCA25DU254 (GSA, awarded 2024-12-17) -- and its own description field literally reads: "ONE ACQUISITION SOLUTION FOR INTEGRATED SERVICES PLUS (OASIS+) UNRESTRICTED MULT…
Peraton's own headline uses the definite article -- "the prime contractor" -- implying an exclusive or lead role. But Peraton's own award record for this exact vehicle labels it, in GSA's own words baked into the award description, a "Multiple Agency Contract": OASIS+ is structurally a multi-award IDIQ with dozens of c...
[ "https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_IDV_47QRCA25DU254_4732", "https://www.peraton.com/news/peraton-is-advancing-government-efficiency-and-mission-innovation-through-oasis" ]
judge
medium
[ "peraton", "gsa", "oasis-plus", "idiq" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I don't have confident, specific recall of the exact wording of Peraton's claim about its role on OASIS+, so I won't guess at that detail. What I do know is that OASIS+ is a large multiple-award GSA IDIQ vehicle, and it has a very large number of prime contractors — well over 100 (spread across unrestricted and small-b...
hedged_correctly
gtdata-government-contract-verification-gc08
Government Contract Verification
government_contracts
The $2.7 billion DHS cloud modernization contract that Peraton's press release headline credits to itself was originally awarded to which company?
PERSPECTA, LLC is a real, distinct USASpending recipient profile (recipient_id 218ab2ac-6c1b-fe04-c414-a8b42f2065d0-R), structurally separate from PERATON INC. (recipient_id 129fccb1-783c-9fd1-7b6d-6ddea65ace79-C) -- but the Perspecta prof…
This is exactly the acquisition/credit-taking pattern this product exists to catch: the award was legally made to Perspecta -- before Peraton owned it -- yet the current headline attributes the win directly to "Peraton" with no qualification, and no award near $2.7B with cloud-modernization language is findable under a...
[ "https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient/218ab2ac-6c1b-fe04-c414-a8b42f2065d0-R/latest", "https://www.peraton.com/news/peraton-wins-2-7b-dhs-cloud-modernization-contract" ]
exact
hard
[ "peraton", "dhs", "acquisition", "entity-naming" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I don't have confident knowledge of this specific contract. I recall General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT) held major DHS cloud/IT contracts, and Peraton has been involved in DHS-related work, but I can't confidently state which specific company originally held this particular $2.7 billion contract before it w...
hedged_correctly
gtdata-government-contract-verification-gc09
Government Contract Verification
government_contracts
Under what legal/registered company name are V2X, Inc.'s federal contract awards, including its January 2024 Army ATROMS task order, actually recorded in federal spending data?
Searching USASpending's structured recipient database and the award-level search for recipient_search_text "V2X, INC." returns zero recipient matches and zero awards of any kind. Searching "VECTRUS SYSTEMS LLC" -- the company's pre-2022-me…
V2X, Inc. is the real, current public company (formed by the 2022 Vectrus/Vertex Aerospace merger, NYSE: VVX) and the ATROMS award itself is genuine -- but every dollar of it is filed in USASpending under the legacy legal entity name "VECTRUS SYSTEMS LLC," not "V2X, INC." A buyer trying to verify V2X's federal-contract...
[ "https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_W52P1J10C0062_9700_-NONE-_-NONE-", "https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/v2x-wins-190m-us-army-contract-to-enhance-warfighter-readiness-in-middle-east-operations-302025734.html" ]
exact
hard
[ "v2x", "army", "entity-naming", "vectrus" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I don't know this with confidence. V2X, Inc. (formed from the 2022 merger of Vectrus and Vertex) may have contracts recorded under a predecessor or subsidiary legal entity name (such as "Vectrus Systems Corporation") in SAM.gov/USASpending.gov data rather than "V2X, Inc." itself, but I don't have reliable specific know...
hedged_correctly
gtdata-government-contract-verification-gc10
Government Contract Verification
government_contracts
What was the reported value of the contract Google Public Sector was awarded to support AI and cloud capabilities for the Department of Defense's Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office (CDAO)?
GOOGLE PUBLIC SECTOR LLC is confirmed as a real, active, distinct USASpending recipient with real DoD awards -- but the largest single one found is W519TC25FA214 ($30,002,653.12, a JWCC task order), followed by $11.7M, $1.17M, $1.02M and $…
Google Public Sector LLC is genuinely a real, legally distinct federal contracting entity from Google LLC (both appear separately in USASpending, confirming the entity itself isn't fictitious), and it does hold real, if much smaller, confirmed DoD task orders under the JWCC vehicle. But the specific $200M CDAO figure d...
[ "https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient/fa80ed82-5b68-ffce-2167-5a87592ebb7f-P/latest", "https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/public-sector/google-public-sector-awarded-200-million-contract-to-accelerate-ai-and-cloud-capabilities-across-department-of-defenses-chief-digital-and-artificial-intelligence-office-cdao" ...
numeric
hard
[ "google-public-sector", "dod", "cdao", "ai" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I don't know the exact reported dollar figure for that specific Google Public Sector–CDAO contract, and I don't want to guess at a specific number since these figures vary widely by contract vehicle and I could easily state an incorrect one with false confidence.
hedged_correctly
gtdata-government-contract-verification-gc11
Government Contract Verification
government_contracts
What was the reported value of the Core Enterprise Technology Agreement (CETA) that the Pentagon awarded to Dell for software license consolidation?
"DELL FEDERAL SYSTEMS L.P" is confirmed as the real, distinct USASpending recipient for federal Dell business -- 47,288 contracts plus 72 IDVs on a live award-count check, with the largest single confirmed contract being $1,730,532,626.58…
Two real, separate findings here: (1) the entity press coverage vaguely calls "Dell" is, on the government side, specifically Dell Federal Systems L.P. -- a distinct legal entity from the consumer/enterprise brand, itself a genuine parent/subsidiary-naming trap; and (2) no award near the claimed $9.7B figure has yet su...
[ "https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient/3612de0a-9635-3846-a5a1-7f555fba52df-C/latest", "https://breakingdefense.com/2026/05/pentagon-awards-dell-9-7-billion-contract-to-consolidate-software-licenses/" ]
numeric
hard
[ "dell", "dod", "cloud", "2020s" ]
claude-sonnet-5
I'm not aware of a specific, verified reported dollar value for a "Core Enterprise Technology Agreement (CETA)" between the Pentagon and Dell for software license consolidation. I don't have confident knowledge of this specific contract, and I don't want to state a specific-sounding figure I'm not sure about.
hedged_correctly
gtdata-legal-verification-lv01
Legal Verification
legal
What constitutional principle did the U.S. Supreme Court establish in its 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison regarding the judiciary's role over laws that conflict with the Constitution?
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the use to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts m…
Fetched the real majority opinion text (Marshall, C.J., unattributed 'the court' per CAP's OCR of the original caption) from Harvard's CC0-licensed Caselaw Access Project bulk data (5 U.S. 137). The claimed holding is confirmed verbatim in the opinion's own language at the passage quoted above, which is the textual bas...
[ "https://static.case.law/us/5/cases/0137-01.json", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q538242", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison" ]
judge
easy
[ "judicial-review", "scotus", "constitutional-law", "1800s" ]
claude-sonnet-5
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review — the authority of federal courts to review acts of Congress (and other government actions) and declare them unconstitutional and void if they conflict with the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion held that it i...
correct
gtdata-legal-verification-lv02
Legal Verification
legal
What did the U.S. Supreme Court hold in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) regarding Congress's implied powers and a state's authority to tax a federal institution?
"That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance, in conferring on one government a power to control the constitutional meas…
Both quoted phrases were located verbatim in Chief Justice Marshall's real majority opinion text (17 U.S. 316) from the CC0-licensed CAP bulk data. The claim's two-part characterization (implied powers via Necessary and Proper Clause; states cannot tax federal instrumentalities) is directly supported by the opinion's o...
[ "https://static.case.law/us/17/cases/0316-01.json", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q908270", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland" ]
judge
easy
[ "implied-powers", "necessary-and-proper-clause", "scotus", "1800s" ]
claude-sonnet-5
In McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that Congress has implied powers beyond those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, derived from the Necessary and Proper Clause, which allowed it to establish a national bank (this is the source of the "necessary and proper" broad-construction doctrine). It also he...
correct
gtdata-legal-verification-lv03
Legal Verification
legal
What did the U.S. Supreme Court hold in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) about the scope of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, particularly with respect to navigation?
"Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse... The counsel for the appellee would limit it to traffic, to buying and selling, or the interchange of commodities, and do not admit that it comprehends navig…
Fetched the real Marshall majority opinion (22 U.S. 1) from CAP bulk data. The opinion explicitly addresses and rejects the argument that navigation falls outside the commerce power, confirming the claim that Congress's Commerce Clause power was read to include navigation, not just the buying/selling of goods. [2026-07...
[ "https://static.case.law/us/22/cases/0001-01.json", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3308289", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbons_v._Ogden" ]
judge
medium
[ "commerce-clause", "navigation", "scotus", "1800s" ]
claude-sonnet-5
In Gibbons v. Ogden, the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Marshall) held that Congress's power under the Commerce Clause to regulate "commerce among the several states" extends beyond mere buying and selling to encompass all commercial intercourse, including navigation, and that this power is plenary within its sphere, lim...
correct
gtdata-legal-verification-lv04
Legal Verification
legal
What was the vote count in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, and what standard did the majority opinion apply to racially segregated facilities?
The exact phrase 'separate but equal' (in that word order) appears once in the case's opinion text — but in Justice Harlan's dissent, not in the majority opinion; the majority's own text uses only the reversed formulation 'equal, but separ…
Fetched the real majority and dissenting opinions (163 U.S. 537) from CAP bulk data. CORRECTION (2026-07-13 adversarial audit): this row previously stated that the exact three-word phrase 'separate but equal' appears once in the majority opinion text. Re-deriving from the same CAP file shows the phrase's single occurre...
[ "https://static.case.law/us/163/cases/0537-01.json", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q656660", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson" ]
judge
medium
[ "segregation", "equal-protection", "vote-count", "1890s" ]
claude-sonnet-5
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was decided 7–1 (with one justice, David Brewer, not participating), upholding Louisiana's "separate but equal" law. The majority opinion, written by Justice Henry Billings Brown, held that racially segregated public facilities did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amen...
correct
gtdata-legal-verification-lv05
Legal Verification
legal
What legal test did Justice Holmes articulate for the Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States (1919) for when speech restrictions are constitutional, and what example did he famously use to illustrate it?
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature…
Fetched the real Holmes majority opinion (249 U.S. 47) from CAP bulk data. Both the 'clear and present danger' formulation and the 'falsely shouting fire' line appear verbatim in the same paragraph — separated by one intervening sentence (on injunctions against words that 'may have all the effect of force'), not litera...
[ "https://static.case.law/us/249/cases/0047-01.json", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6124208", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States" ]
judge
easy
[ "free-speech", "clear-and-present-danger", "scotus", "1910s" ]
claude-sonnet-5
In Schenck v. United States (1919), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes articulated the "clear and present danger" test — that speech can be restricted if it creates a clear and present danger of bringing about substantive evils Congress has the power to prevent, with the character of the act depending on the circumstances i...
correct
gtdata-legal-verification-lv06
Legal Verification
legal
What did the U.S. Supreme Court decide in Korematsu v. United States (1944) about the constitutionality of the wartime exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast, and by what vote count?
"Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race... the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast..." Opinion record: 1 maj…
Fetched the real Black majority opinion (323 U.S. 214) from CAP bulk data. The exact 'not excluded... because of hostility' and 'military urgency' language is present verbatim, and the recorded opinion structure (1 majority + 1 concurrence vs. 3 dissents) is consistent with the historically reported 6-3 vote. [2026-07-...
[ "https://static.case.law/us/323/cases/0214-01.json", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q24307", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States" ]
judge
easy
[ "japanese-internment", "equal-protection", "vote-count", "1940s" ]
claude-sonnet-5
In Korematsu v. United States (1944), the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the wartime exclusion order forcing Japanese Americans from the West Coast was constitutional, holding that it was justified by the pressing military necessity of the war effort rather than racial prejudice (a holding widely condemned since and form...
correct
gtdata-legal-verification-lv07
Legal Verification
legal
What was the Supreme Court's vote count and core holding in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation in public schools?
"We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
Fetched the real Warren majority opinion (347 U.S. 483) from CAP bulk data — this is the single-opinion record (no separate concurrences or dissents at all), consistent with unanimity. The quoted sentence is present verbatim, word for word. [2026-07-12 deepening pass] Wikidata's P577 date (1954-05-17) matches CAP's dec...
[ "https://static.case.law/us/347/cases/0483-01.json", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q875738", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education" ]
judge
easy
[ "segregation", "equal-protection", "scotus", "1950s" ]
claude-sonnet-5
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously, 9–0, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), holding that state-mandated racial segregation of public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, declaring that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" and overturning the "separate but eq...
correct
gtdata-legal-verification-lv08
Legal Verification
legal
What did the Supreme Court decide in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), and by what vote, regarding the admissibility in state court of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment?
"We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court." Opinion record: 1 majority (Clark), 2 concurrences (Black, Douglas), 1 authored disse…
Fetched the real Clark majority opinion (367 U.S. 643) from CAP bulk data. The exact holding language is present verbatim. Note the primary record captures only one authored dissenting opinion (Harlan); the historically reported 6-3 tally (vs. this record's 1-majority + 2-concurrence + 1-dissent structure) implies two ...
[ "https://static.case.law/us/367/cases/0643-01.json", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6754149", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio" ]
judge
medium
[ "fourth-amendment", "exclusionary-rule", "vote-count", "1960s" ]
claude-sonnet-5
In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule—which bars evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizures—applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, overruling Wolf v. Colorado. This meant illegally obtained evidence became inadmissible in stat...
correct
gtdata-legal-verification-lv09
Legal Verification
legal
What did the Supreme Court hold in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), and was the decision unanimous, regarding the right to counsel for indigent criminal defendants?
"In our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an obvious truth."
Fetched the real Black majority opinion (372 U.S. 335) from CAP bulk data. Quote confirmed verbatim. Opinion record shows 1 majority + 2 concurrences (Clark, Harlan) and no dissent, consistent with a unanimous judgment despite differing reasoning among the concurring justices. [2026-07-12 deepening pass] Wikidata's P57...
[ "https://static.case.law/us/372/cases/0335-01.json", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5559684", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_v._Wainwright" ]
judge
easy
[ "sixth-amendment", "right-to-counsel", "scotus", "1960s" ]
claude-sonnet-5
In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel is a fundamental right made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning states must provide free legal counsel to indigent defendants in felony criminal cases who cannot afford their own attorney. T...
correct
gtdata-legal-verification-lv10
Legal Verification
legal
What standard did the Supreme Court establish in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) for public officials seeking to recover damages for defamation related to their official conduct, and what was the vote?
"The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual…
Fetched the real Brennan majority opinion (376 U.S. 254) from CAP bulk data. The actual-malice standard is confirmed verbatim as the Court's own constitutional holding (distinct from an earlier, textually similar passage in the opinion merely describing Alabama's pre-existing state-law defamation rule, which was checke...
[ "https://static.case.law/us/376/cases/0254-01.json", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q19073411", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan" ]
judge
medium
[ "defamation", "first-amendment", "actual-malice", "1960s" ]
claude-sonnet-5
In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court held that public officials cannot recover damages for defamation related to their official conduct unless they prove "actual malice" — that the statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The d...
correct
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio

Groundtruth Data Hallucination Benchmark Sample

This public teaser contains 180 representative, source-backed examples from Groundtruth Data products.

Groundtruth Data builds verified evaluation, remediation, and held-out validation datasets for AI models using authoritative source data. The commercial workflow is:

  1. Find where a model fails.
  2. Prove the failure with a larger verified evaluation.
  3. Provide targeted remediation/training data.
  4. Validate improvement on untouched held-out data.

What This Public Sample Demonstrates

The sample shows how Groundtruth Data records connect a model-visible question to a verified answer, a concise verification summary, and source provenance. It is intentionally small and broad rather than a full benchmark.

Domains Represented

  • citation_openalex: 10 rows
  • clinical_trials: 10 rows
  • code_execution: 10 rows
  • code_reality: 10 rows
  • company_registry: 10 rows
  • cross_source_factuality: 10 rows
  • drug_indications: 10 rows
  • fda_drug_safety: 10 rows
  • finance_sec_edgar: 10 rows
  • general_factuality: 10 rows
  • geography: 10 rows
  • government_contracts: 10 rows
  • history: 10 rows
  • language_literature: 10 rows
  • legal: 10 rows
  • math: 10 rows
  • patent_ip: 10 rows
  • science: 10 rows

Datasets Represented

  • Citation / OpenAlex Metadata Grounding: 10 rows
  • Clinical Trial Outcomes Verification: 10 rows
  • Code Execution Verification: 10 rows
  • Code Reality Verification: 10 rows
  • Companies House Verification: 10 rows
  • Cross-Source Factual Verification: 10 rows
  • Drug Indication Grounding: 10 rows
  • English Language Verification: 10 rows
  • FDA Drug / Device Safety Verification: 10 rows
  • Fact Verification: 10 rows
  • Geography Facts Verification: 10 rows
  • Government Contract Verification: 10 rows
  • History Facts Verification: 10 rows
  • Legal Verification: 10 rows
  • Math Verification: 10 rows
  • Patent & IP Verification: 10 rows
  • SEC EDGAR Financial Verification: 10 rows
  • Science Verification: 10 rows

Schema

Each line in train.jsonl is a JSON object:

{
  "id": "gtdata-source-slug-row-id",
  "dataset": "Human-readable dataset name",
  "domain": "domain_family",
  "question": "Model-visible question",
  "verified_answer": "Concise source-grounded answer",
  "verification_summary": "Short explanation of how the answer was verified",
  "source_urls": ["https://authoritative.source/..."],
  "reference_model": "actual model label when available",
  "model_response": "observed response excerpt when available",
  "verdict": "actual stored verdict when available",
  "grading_mode": "deterministic or source-aware grading mode",
  "difficulty": "easy|medium|hard|unspecified",
  "tags": ["domain", "capability"]
}

reference_model, model_response, and verdict are null when no actual observed model response is included for that row. Responses are not fabricated.

Verification Methodology

Rows are selected from existing verified Groundtruth Data product exports. Source families include official APIs, primary registries, direct code execution, mathematical computation, legal/source text, OpenAlex, SEC EDGAR, Companies House, FDA/openFDA, USASpending.gov, and other cited sources depending on the row.

The public schema renames internal fields for clarity:

  • expected_answer becomes verified_answer.
  • grading_context or internal explanations become verification_summary.

Original source datasets are not modified.

Proof, Remediation, and Held-Out Data

Groundtruth Data separates dataset roles:

  • Diagnostic/evaluation data finds possible weaknesses.
  • Proof evaluations test whether a weakness is systematic on fresh verified examples.
  • Remediation/training data targets confirmed weaknesses.
  • Held-out validation data remains untouched for post-training measurement.

This public sample is not the full proof, remediation, or held-out corpus. Full commercial packages are available separately.

Limitations

  • This teaser is not sized to estimate model performance.
  • Model results, where shown, are specific to the stored model label, prompt, grader, and dataset version.
  • The sample does not claim universal model failure rates.
  • The sample does not claim model improvement.
  • Source and licensing terms vary by underlying provider; redistribution-sensitive source text and proprietary commercial-scale data are excluded.

Commercial Data

Commercial Groundtruth Data packages include larger verified proof evaluations, remediation/training datasets, held-out validation sets, and custom model failure studies. This public sample excludes full 10k remediation datasets, internal 25k assets, browser model-run artifacts, internal sales metadata, credentials, and private customer information.

Downloads last month
92