{
  "slug": "dp_004-q07-codex",
  "dp": "dp_004",
  "files": 30,
  "qid": "q07",
  "family": "multi_hop",
  "prompt": "Carmen planned an adverse-inference request targeting Karras's withheld text messages. Using the precedent-cases memo (research/precedent-cases-memo.md), the hearing-prep outline (notes/hearing-prep-outline.md), and the opposing discovery correspondence (correspondence/opposing/ortega-discovery-correspondence.md): (a) What is the full citation of the Second Department case Carmen identified as the legal basis for that adverse-inference request? (b) In which lettered section of the hearing-prep outline does Carmen note she would have a Westlaw printout of this case 'ready for the bench'? (c) What did Karras's counsel claim happened to the text messages that made them unavailable?",
  "gold": "(a) Schein v. Powerplay Builders, LLC, 178 AD3d 1102 (2d Dep't 2019). (b) Section H of the hearing-prep outline. (c) Ortega claimed Karras follows a 'standard phone-rotation policy' (Karras's phrase) \u2014 a roughly 60-day rolling clearing of text-message threads, meaning historical messages predating that window would have been deleted as part of routine cycle. Ortega ultimately produced a sworn affidavit (executed 2026-03-18) attesting that after a search of Karras's iPhone 13 and iCloud Messages backup, no responsive text messages exist within the 2025-11-01 through 2026-01-22 discovery window beyond what Park had already produced informally.",
  "agent": "codex",
  "fs": {
    "agent": "codex",
    "success": true,
    "steps": 1,
    "inputTokens": 251504,
    "outputTokens": 3493,
    "totalTokens": 254997,
    "cost": 3.1228,
    "durationMs": 57182,
    "answer": "(a) The case was *Schein v. Powerplay Builders, LLC*, 178 AD3d 1102, 116 NYS3d 296 (2d Dep\u2019t 2019). See [precedent-cases-memo.md](/Users/prasanna/Documents/supermemoryai/supermemoryfs/.scratch/eval/eval/workspace/fs/dp_004/agent_memory/research/precedent-cases-memo.md:72).\n\n(b) Section **H**, titled **\u201cADVERSE-INFERENCE REQUEST (written; tendered at close of evidence)\u201d**. See [hearing-prep-outline.md](/Users/prasanna/Documents/supermemoryai/supermemoryfs/.scratch/eval/eval/workspace/fs/dp_004/agent_memory/notes/hearing-prep-outline.md:212).\n\n(c) Ortega claimed that no responsive texts existed beyond Park\u2019s own production, and that any older messages had been deleted under Karras\u2019s routine \u201c60-day rolling\u201d personal-device cleanup/\u201cstandard phone-rotation policy,\u201d making them unrecoverable from the device. See [ortega-discovery-correspondence.md](/Users/prasanna/Documents/supermemoryai/supermemoryfs/.scratch/eval/eval/workspace/fs/dp_004/agent_memory/correspondence/opposing/ortega-discovery-correspondence.md:102).",
    "judgeReason": "covers all asked facts",
    "toolCalls": 10,
    "trajectory": [
      {
        "step": 1,
        "inputTokens": 251504,
        "outputTokens": 3493,
        "text": "I\u2019ll search the referenced files and the `agent_memory` area first, then cross-check the cited memo, outline, and correspondence so the answer ties each part to the right source.\nThe broad search found the Park v. Karras memory index and the three requested files under `agent_memory/`. I\u2019m opening the exact passages now to avoid relying on the overview\u2019s shorthand citation.\nThe key cross-check is consistent: the full citation is in the precedent memo, while the hearing outline uses a shortened citation but places the Westlaw printout note in section H. The correspondence gives the explanation for why Ortega said the texts were unavailable.\n(a) The case was *Schein v. Powerplay Builders, LLC*, 178 AD3d 1102, 116 NYS3d 296 (2d Dep\u2019t 2019). See [precedent-cases-memo.md](/Users/prasanna/Documents/supermemoryai/supermemoryfs/.scratch/eval/eval/workspace/fs/dp_004/agent_memory/research/precedent-cases-memo.md:72).\n\n(b) Section **H**, titled **\u201cADVERSE-INFERENCE REQUEST (written; tendered at close of evidence)\u201d**. See [hearing-prep-outline.md](/Users/prasanna/Documents/supermemoryai/supermemoryfs/.scratch/eval/eval/workspace/fs/dp_004/agent_memory/notes/hearing-prep-outline.md:212).\n\n(c) Ortega claimed that no responsive texts existed beyond Park\u2019s own production, and that any older messages had been deleted under Karras\u2019s routine \u201c60-day rolling\u201d personal-device cleanup/\u201cstandard phone-rotation policy,\u201d making them unrecoverable from the device. See [ortega-discovery-correspondence.md](/Users/prasanna/Documents/supermemoryai/supermemoryfs/.scratch/eval/eval/workspace/fs/dp_004/agent_memory/correspondence/opposing/ortega-discovery-correspondence.md:102).",
        "toolCalls": [
          {
            "name": "command_execution",
            "input": "{\"command\": \"/bin/zsh -lc 'rg -n \\\"Karras|adverse|inference|Westlaw|ready for the bench|text messages|withheld\\\" agent_memory research notes correspondence'\"}",
            "outputPreview": "rg: research: No such file or directory (os error 2)\nrg: notes: No such file or directory (os error 2)\nrg: correspondence: No such file or directory (os error 2)\nagent_memory/correspondence/client/status-updates-park.md:1:# Park v. Karras \u2014 Weekly Status Updates Compilation, Matter OL-2026-0019\nagent_memory/correspondence/client/status-updates-park.md:19:**Engagement formalities.** Retainer agreem\u2026",
            "outputChars": 196377
          },
          {
            "name": "command_execution",
            "input": "{\"command\": \"/bin/zsh -lc 'rg --files agent_memory research notes correspondence'\"}",
            "outputPreview": "rg: research: No such file or directory (os error 2)\nrg: notes: No such file or directory (os error 2)\nrg: correspondence: No such file or directory (os error 2)\nagent_memory/correspondence/client/status-updates-park.md\nagent_memory/correspondence/client/pre-hearing-prep-park.md\nagent_memory/correspondence/client/intake-emails-park.md\nagent_memory/correspondence/opposing/ortega-initial-corresponde\u2026",
            "outputChars": 1824
          },
          {
            "name": "command_execution",
            "input": "{\"command\": \"/bin/zsh -lc 'rg -n \\\"Schein|Powerplay|adverse|inference|Westlaw|ready for the bench|Second Department|Second Dept|text messages|reset|unavailable|no longer available|withheld\\\" agent_memory/research/precedent-cases-memo.md'\"}",
            "outputPreview": "11:NY authority for the five theories in *Park v. Karras*: (i) breach of contract and implied warranty of workmanlike performance; (ii) unenforceability of the alleged $4,500 oral change order under GBL \u00a7771; (iii) NYC Construction Code violations (Electrical, Mechanical) and the non-delegable duty doctrine; (iv) GBL \u00a7349 deceptive practices with statutory fee-shifting; and (v) small-claims-part a\u2026",
            "outputChars": 7016
          },
          {
            "name": "command_execution",
            "input": "{\"command\": \"/bin/zsh -lc 'rg -n \\\"Schein|Powerplay|adverse|inference|Westlaw|ready for the bench|section|Section|text messages|reset|unavailable|no longer available|withheld\\\" agent_memory/notes/hearing-prep-outline.md'\"}",
            "outputPreview": "174:8. **Adverse-inference setup.** Declined to produce texts from 2025-11-01 to 2026-01-31? \u2014 yes. Still have them? \u2014 concedes \"I don't know\" or \"deleted\"; either helps us.\n216:One-page written request, citing **Schein v. Powerplay Builders** (2nd Dept. 2019): a party's unjustified refusal to produce relevant electronic communications in its possession permits \u2014 though does not require \u2014 an infer\u2026",
            "outputChars": 1417
          },
          {
            "name": "command_execution",
            "input": "{\"command\": \"/bin/zsh -lc 'rg -n \\\"text messages|texts|reset|unavailable|no longer available|withheld|phone|device|destroyed|lost|preserve|adverse\\\" agent_memory/correspondence/opposing/ortega-discovery-correspondence.md'\"}",
            "outputPreview": "5:This file collects the discovery cover letters, the meet-and-confer chain over Karras's text-message refusal, and the brief logistical exchange leading up to (but not including) Ortega's 2026-03-13 settlement offer. The substantive offer and Wendell's response live in file 09 (settlement-offer-exchange); see also 22, 23, 24. The hearing-prep adverse-inference workup lives in 28.\n26:We proceed in\u2026",
            "outputChars": 7458
          },
          {
            "name": "command_execution",
            "input": "{\"command\": \"/bin/zsh -lc \\\"sed -n '60,90p' agent_memory/research/precedent-cases-memo.md\\\"\"}",
            "outputPreview": "### Case 3 \u2014 *Persaud v. NYC Refit LLC*, 2019 NY Slip Op 50217(U) (Civ Ct Queens Co. 2019)\n\n**Citation:** *Persaud v. NYC Refit LLC*, 63 Misc 3d 1216(A), 2019 NY Slip Op 50217(U) (Civ Ct Queens Co. 2019) (table).\n\n**Court / Year:** Civil Court, Queens County, 2019. Hon. T. Adamopoulos.\n\n**Holding:** A contractor's failure to vent a range hood to the building exterior \u2014 instead venting into an adja\u2026",
            "outputChars": 3335
          },
          {
            "name": "command_execution",
            "input": "{\"command\": \"/bin/zsh -lc \\\"sed -n '190,230p' agent_memory/notes/hearing-prep-outline.md\\\"\"}",
            "outputPreview": "\n2. **Workmanlike-performance breach.**\n   - \"Aldous Bremer's measurements at Tab 4 \u2014 half-inch off-level cabinets, six loose tiles, cracked grout, exposed range-hood duct, non-GFCI outlet \u2014 are unrebutted in any writing or expert report.\"\n   - \"Karras's own admission that he is a professional contractor and that he knew the code makes the breach a knowing one.\"\n   - Industry standard via Tab 13.\n\u2026",
            "outputChars": 2941
          },
          {
            "name": "command_execution",
            "input": "{\"command\": \"/bin/zsh -lc \\\"sed -n '130,150p' agent_memory/correspondence/opposing/ortega-discovery-correspondence.md\\\"\"}",
            "outputPreview": "280 Garfield Place, Brooklyn NY 11215\n\nRe: *Park v. Karras*, Index SC-002847-26/KI \u2014 Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Document Requests and Interrogatories\n\nDear Carmen,\n\nEnclosed please find Defendant Stefan Karras's responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Document Requests (Items 1\u201311) and First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1\u20135). The full responses, with attached productions, are \u2026",
            "outputChars": 1721
          },
          {
            "name": "command_execution",
            "input": "{\"command\": \"/bin/zsh -lc \\\"sed -n '90,115p' agent_memory/correspondence/opposing/ortega-discovery-correspondence.md\\\"\"}",
            "outputPreview": "\u2014\nCarmen Ostrowski, Esq. | Ostrowski Legal PLLC | NY Bar #4827193\n280 Garfield Place, Brooklyn NY 11215\n*\"We are made to persist. That is how we find out who we are.\" \u2014 Tobias Wolff*\n\n---\n\n## Document 4 \u2014 Ortega email, 2026-03-10 11:42\n\n**From:** Felipe Ortega\n**To:** Carmen Ostrowski\n**Date:** Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 11:42 AM\n**Subject:** Re: Park v. Karras \u2014 friendly nudge re text messages 11/01\u201301\u2026",
            "outputChars": 2047
          },
          {
            "name": "command_execution",
            "input": "{\"command\": \"/bin/zsh -lc pwd\"}",
            "outputPreview": "/Users/prasanna/Documents/supermemoryai/supermemoryfs/.scratch/eval/eval/workspace/fs/dp_004\n",
            "outputChars": 93
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  },
  "smfs": {
    "agent": "codex",
    "success": true,
    "steps": 1,
    "inputTokens": 131691,
    "outputTokens": 1967,
    "totalTokens": 133658,
    "cost": 1.6393,
    "durationMs": 55859,
    "answer": "(a) *Schein v. Powerplay Builders, LLC*, 178 AD3d 1102, 116 NYS3d 296 (2d Dep\u2019t 2019).\n\n(b) Section H: \u201cADVERSE-INFERENCE REQUEST.\u201d\n\n(c) Karras\u2019s counsel claimed Stefan routinely cleared text-message threads on a roughly 60-day rolling basis under his \u201cstandard phone-rotation policy,\u201d so any older messages were deleted in that routine cycle and were not recoverable from the device. Counsel also claimed no relevant texts existed beyond what Park had already produced.",
    "judgeReason": "covers all asked facts",
    "toolCalls": 5,
    "trajectory": [
      {
        "step": 1,
        "inputTokens": 131691,
        "outputTokens": 1967,
        "text": "I\u2019ll search the specified memory files for Carmen\u2019s adverse-inference note and the Karras text-message correspondence, then cross-check the citation against the precedent memo.\nThe key references are in the adverse-inference subsection of the hearing outline and the Schein entry in the precedent memo. I\u2019m opening those line ranges now to capture the exact section label and full citation.\n(a) *Schein v. Powerplay Builders, LLC*, 178 AD3d 1102, 116 NYS3d 296 (2d Dep\u2019t 2019).\n\n(b) Section H: \u201cADVERSE-INFERENCE REQUEST.\u201d\n\n(c) Karras\u2019s counsel claimed Stefan routinely cleared text-message threads on a roughly 60-day rolling basis under his \u201cstandard phone-rotation policy,\u201d so any older messages were deleted in that routine cycle and were not recoverable from the device. Counsel also claimed no relevant texts existed beyond what Park had already produced.",
        "toolCalls": [
          {
            "name": "command_execution",
            "input": "{\"command\": \"/bin/zsh -lc 'rg -n \\\"Karras|adverse|inference|text messages|Westlaw|ready for the bench|Second Department\\\" research/precedent-cases-memo.md notes/hearing-prep-outline.md correspondence/opposing/ortega-discovery-correspondence.md'\"}",
            "outputPreview": "notes/hearing-prep-outline.md:3:**Hearing-Prep Outline (Park v. Karras)**\nnotes/hearing-prep-outline.md:32:1. **Contract.** Signed 2025-11-04 between Wendell Park and Karras Custom Builders LLC. Total contract price $24,500. Scope: cabinet replacement (custom shaker maple), quartz countertops, porcelain floor tile, electrical updates including code-mandated GFCI outlets near the sink. Start 2025-1\u2026",
            "outputChars": 25855
          },
          {
            "name": "command_execution",
            "input": "{\"command\": \"/bin/zsh -lc ls\"}",
            "outputPreview": "client_intake\ncorrespondence\ndiscovery\nmemory\nnotes\npleadings\nprofile.md\nresearch\n",
            "outputChars": 82
          },
          {
            "name": "command_execution",
            "input": "{\"command\": \"/bin/zsh -lc \\\"nl -ba research/precedent-cases-memo.md | sed -n '72,86p'\\\"\"}",
            "outputPreview": "    72\t### Case 4 \u2014 *Schein v. Powerplay Builders, LLC*, 178 AD3d 1102 (2d Dep't 2019)\n    73\t\n    74\t**Citation:** *Schein v. Powerplay Builders, LLC*, 178 AD3d 1102, 116 NYS3d 296 (2d Dep't 2019).\n    75\t\n    76\t**Court / Year:** Appellate Division, Second Department, 2019. On appeal from the Appellate Term, 9th & 10th Judicial Districts.\n    77\t\n    78\t**Holding:** The \"substantial justice\" sta\u2026",
            "outputChars": 1958
          },
          {
            "name": "command_execution",
            "input": "{\"command\": \"/bin/zsh -lc \\\"nl -ba notes/hearing-prep-outline.md | sed -n '200,226p'\\\"\"}",
            "outputPreview": "   200\t\n   201\t4. **Substantial-justice principle of CCA \u00a71804.**\n   202\t   - Small-claims part is governed by substantial justice rather than the rules of evidence.\n   203\t   - We have offered the court contemporaneous photos, the contractor's own license, an independent estimate, a neighbor's contemporaneous journal, and a signed contract.\n   204\t   - The defense has offered an oral claim with n\u2026",
            "outputChars": 1853
          },
          {
            "name": "command_execution",
            "input": "{\"command\": \"/bin/zsh -lc \\\"nl -ba correspondence/opposing/ortega-discovery-correspondence.md | sed -n '100,112p'\\\"\"}",
            "outputPreview": "   100\t**To:** Carmen Ostrowski\n   101\t**Date:** Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 11:42 AM\n   102\t**Subject:** Re: Park v. Karras \u2014 friendly nudge re text messages 11/01\u201301/22\n   103\t\n   104\tCarmen,\n   105\t\n   106\tAcknowledged and appreciated. To telegraph: my client's position, which I am still pressure-testing with him, is that **no relevant text messages exist beyond what Mr. Park has already produced info\u2026",
            "outputChars": 1834
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}