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
Financial work tests sustained planning, consistency across documents, compliance constraints, and linked tool actions.
How to read the result
Look for agreement between the financial conclusion, supporting artifacts, and required workflow. A correct-looking report can conceal an inconsistent calculation.
Limits and comparison traps
The reviewed launch report supplies a headline result but limited public scoring detail. Do not infer a public task set or matched evaluation budget.
Benchmark reference notes
Commercial and investment banking tool-use benchmark reported in MiniMax M3.1 Flash.
Where this fits in an evaluation suite
Synthetic research rewards do not establish live investment performance. Preserve transaction costs, held-out regimes, constraints, and the exact policy behind a reported result.
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.