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.

Kimi · Kimi K3.1 Pro →

What it measures

Find evidence and reason across workplace document collections. Version 1 and version 2 remain separate evaluations within this collection.

How to read the result

Use it to check whether gains generalize beyond one familiar archive and its recurring layout conventions.

Limits and comparison traps

Do not pool this set with the original OfficeQA Pro corpus. Corpus identity, dates, and question denominators remain part of the result.

Published evaluation

Exact values from the publisher’s embedded full comparison table. Maximum effort, fallback settings and dated model versions remain in model labels. Blank cells stay missing. Source footnotes specify mixed harnesses and externally quoted comparisons; this is a launch-reported cohort rather than a new independent evaluation.

Versions and evaluation settings

Unite the OfficeQA Pro collection on the requested canonical route, but keep v1 and v2 document collections as separate measures.

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

Exact values from the publisher’s embedded full comparison table. Maximum effort, fallback settings and dated model versions remain in model labels. Blank cells stay missing. Source footnotes specify mixed harnesses and externally quoted comparisons; this is a launch-reported cohort rather than a new independent evaluation.

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

  1. Introducing Kimi K3.1 Pro ↗

    Moonshot AI · 2026

  2. Primary benchmark documentation or model evaluation report ↗
  3. OfficeQA Pro: An Enterprise Benchmark for End-to-End Grounded Reasoning — published result table ↗

    Opsahl-Ong, Krista, Singhvi, Arnav, Collins, Jasmine, Zhou, Ivan, Wang, Cindy, Baheti, Ashutosh et al. · 2026

    All 13 authors

    Opsahl-Ong, Krista, Singhvi, Arnav, Collins, Jasmine, Zhou, Ivan, Wang, Cindy, Baheti, Ashutosh, Oertell, Owen, Portes, Jacob, Havens, Sam, Elsen, Erich, Bendersky, Michael, Zaharia, Matei, Chen, Xing

Reviewed 2026-10-27. Explanation and interpretation by RLTasks. Benchmark ownership remains with its original authors.