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
This named professional-task evaluation appears in DeepSeek’s recent model comparison.
How to read the result
Preserve the exact label and version from the source. Before combining results, confirm that the underlying tasks and scoring match the intended APEX release.
Limits and comparison traps
The reviewed model card does not establish equivalence with APEX-Agents-AA. The atlas keeps those entries separate rather than treating similar names as the same test.
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
Pin the benchmark release, task split, model configuration, tools, sampling budget, and evaluation harness described by the primary 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.