Reported in recent model launches
These model reports include this benchmark. Their harnesses, task subsets, scoring policies, and resource budgets can differ; follow each report’s evaluation notes before joining the numbers.
What it measures
Professional-service tasks require sustained coordination across applications, files, and tools.
How to read the result
Use it to probe whether a model can preserve requirements while crossing application boundaries.
Limits and comparison traps
Compare the same application tools, task subset, agent wrapper, and attempt budget; cross-application access can determine the outcome.
Benchmark reference notes
Long-horizon cross-application tasks in professional-services environments (452+ tasks).
Where this fits in an evaluation suite
A transcript that says “done” is weaker evidence than the verified final state. Track policy violations, recoveries, and invalid attempts alongside success.
Start with a capability hypothesis, then choose a second test with a different failure mode. Keep the checkpoint, reasoning effort, agent tools, sampling policy, and scoring procedure fixed when measuring a training intervention. Record failures and missing outputs in the denominator.
A reproducible comparison
Use the exact implementation, version, task subset, tool access, attempt budget, and judge described by the source.
Publish the exact run configuration, item coverage, score units, and available uncertainty. If a source supplies only an aggregate or a single run, preserve that limit. A new model name or a rounded score alone does not establish a capability improvement.
PRIMARY EVIDENCE & FURTHER READING
Reviewed 2026-10-26. Explanation and interpretation by RLTasks. Benchmark ownership remains with its original authors.