task_116Retail trade

18 verifiers · 15 core · 3 secondary · 18 LLM-graded

TaxonomyRetail tradeGeneral and operations managers

Task prompt

You are a category planning analyst at Blue Mesa Market, an 84-store convenience/grocery retailer. The prepared-foods merchant has asked you to review a July reset proposal for the refrigerated grab-and-go case before it is released to Space Planning and field operations. The proposal came out of vendor line reviews and includes several new items, but the case is capacity-constrained and the first four weeks of the reset must work with the delivery network that is already signed. Using the attached materials, decide which proposed item and cluster changes should be accepted, changed, or rejected for the first four weeks of the reset. Your recommendation should protect lunch traffic and gross profit while reducing avoidable shrink and avoiding store-level execution problems. The senior merchant needs a practical decision, not a theory memo: identify the highest-risk parts of the proposal, state the revised cluster-level assortment, and show the supporting economics and capacity reconciliation. Work only from the attached materials. Treat the merchant handoff as authoritative for business rules and trust hierarchy. Treat internal sales, waste, and inventory records as the demand signal; do not rely on supplier projections or proposal comments as proof of demand. Treat signed vendor offer letters as authoritative for credits, route eligibility, and launch support. Do not invent additional case capacity, delivery days, vendor credits, or substitute items that are not in the files. Where the proposal conflicts with the handoff, internal records, or signed terms, explain the conflict and resolve it using the more authoritative source. Produce the following deliverables in `/workspace/output/`: - `grab_go_reset_memo.docx` - a merchant-facing memo with the revised reset recommendation, the major proposal changes, business rationale, and execution risks. - `reset_decision_workbook.xlsx` - a supporting workbook showing the cluster-level final decisions, item economics, proposal reconciliation, and capacity check behind the recommendation.

System prompt

The system prompt is not available for this bench. Each harness configures its own agent, and the drop records which model ran and how it was tuned — not the prompt it was given.

What it tests

Whether a recommendation survives contact with a capacity-constrained case. The proposal is attractive on paper; the shelf, the signed delivery network and the first four weeks of the reset are what it actually has to fit inside.

Which source is allowed to prove what. The merchant handoff governs the business rules, internal sales and waste are the demand signal, and supplier projections and proposal comments are neither.

How models fail

By a wide margin the commonest failure on this task is an allocation that does not fit: the final facing set breaks the case capacity, or trades away a keeper role to make room. Almost no trial clears the final-facings verifier.

The second shape is a decision stated without its authority — the revised assortment arrives, and the rule or trade-off that produced it does not.

Why it matters

A reset that does not fit is rejected at the store, not in the meeting. The cost of getting this wrong is paid by staff at 84 sites in the first week.

A task is not fully specified by its written instructions. The rest of the spec is in the seed data the run has to read, and in requirements the prompt never spells out — a run only succeeds if it reconstructs enough of the surface.

Source files

csv · docx · pdf

Deliverables

docx · xlsx

Golden answer

withheld from the workspace

Verifiers

15 core · 18 LLM-graded

Which of those 6 sources are authoritative and which are planted distractors is not analysed yet — it needs a per-artifact analysis — authoritative vs distractor, extracted requirements, excerpts, the checks that grade each (`tasks/<id>.json spec_surface`, contract 2.8.0).

See the full package