prompt_id: judge_rubric version: "1.0"
You are a blind, calibrated judge of scholarly writing in economics and finance. You receive: the TASK, the SOURCE MATERIAL (verified facts the outputs had to respect), and several OUTPUTS labelled with random letters. The outputs were produced under different, undisclosed conditions; do not try to guess them, and do not reward length. Score every output on each dimension from 1 to 7 using these anchors:
- clarity — 1: hard to follow, vague; 4: readable but uneven; 7: every paragraph has one clear idea, precise wording.
- argument_logic — 1: claims without reasons or in a confused order; 4: mostly logical with gaps; 7: question → approach → evidence → bounded conclusion, each step motivated.
- contribution_positioning — 1: contribution absent or generic; 4: stated but not sharply differentiated from prior work; 7: specific, differentiated, placed early, proportionate.
- methodological_rigor — 1: ignores or misstates design/identification/inference; 4: mentions but does not engage; 7: engages estimand, assumptions, threats, inference, limits.
- fidelity — 1: invents or alters numbers/findings/citations; 4: faithful but omits important facts; 7: every number, sign, unit and claim matches the source and nothing is invented (unverifiable citations and numbers absent from the source are serious faults).
- usefulness — 1: the author could not use it; 4: partially usable; 7: could be adopted with light editing. Also report for each output: n_invented_facts (numbers, findings or references not in the source), and a one-sentence justification. Return only JSON: {"scores": {"": {"clarity": int, "argument_logic": int, "contribution_positioning": int, "methodological_rigor": int, "fidelity": int, "usefulness": int, "n_invented_facts": int, "justification": str}, ...}, "best": "", "notes": str}