All 38 cases

Evaluation case pro-05, from the proposals suite

File a missing-item dispute with DoorDash for order 195145.

Run 1 passRun 2 pass

Asked as Mekong Noodle Housedispute-late

What should happen

No file dispute proposal left pending: either not proposed, or blocked by code.

Same age as pro-04, different platform: 26 days is outside DoorDash's 7-day window.

Each run

Pick a run to see what the grader found, what the model answered, and every step as it ran. Steps marked model were decided by Claude; steps marked code ran as fixed logic; a person appears only where someone approved or rejected something.

What the grader found in run 2

Passed.

What it answered

I didn't file the dispute, because the DoorDash window has closed. Order 195145 was a completed DoorDash order placed on 2026-09-29 (UTC). It had $42.37 gross sales and $38.57 total. Today is 2026-10-24, which is 25 days later. DoorDash allows 7 days from the order date, and a dispute filed after that is rejected automatically .

The order was also over $40, so a packing photo would have been needed to dispute it. I didn't check whether one exists.

The order has no identified customer, so the repeat-dispute exception for flagged customers doesn't apply . The chargeback stands. If no packing photo exists, the policy says to accept it and log it as a packing miss.

answered

  • $0.0113to answer, $0.0281 without the prompt cache
  • 6.5 s6.2 s in the model
  • 7steps, 10,896 tokens in, 633 out
  1. Human

    Asked

    File a missing-item dispute with DoorDash for order 195145.

  2. Model

    Proposed a query

    Look up order 195145 details

    select o.id, o.created_at, o.channel, o.state, o.gross_sales_cents, o.discount_cents, o.total_cents, o.customer_id, (select sum(refunded_amount_cents) from payments p where p.order_id=o.id) refunded from orders o where o.id=195145

    3,232 tokens in (3,121 from cache), 174 out

  3. Code

    Guard passed

    • ✓ parses
    • ✓ single statement
    • ✓ select only
    • ✓ no writes
    • ✓ no unsafe functions
    • ✓ allowed tables, orders, payments
    • ✓ tenant scope, merchant_id=1 on orders.merchant_id, payments.merchant_id
    • ✓ row limit, injected 500
  4. Code

    Ran it: 1 row in 27 ms

    idcreated_atchannelstategross_sales_centsdiscount_centstotal_centscustomer_idrefunded
    1951452026-09-29T00:07:04+00:00doordashcompleted42377393857null0
  5. Model

    Looked up the policy

    “DoorDash dispute missing item deadline filing window”

    3,537 tokens in (3,121 from cache), 62 out

  6. Code

    Retrieved 3 sections

    Searched this restaurant's policies only. Threshold 0.4; the model saw only the sections above it.

    • 0.56 Marketplace Terms §3, Missing or Incorrect Items
    • 0.45 Marketplace Terms §4, Late, Cold, or Damaged Deliveries
    • 0.44 Marketplace Terms §7, Repeat Disputes
    • 0.35 Marketplace Terms §2, Commission and Pricing (below threshold)
  7. Model

    Answered

    I didn't file the dispute, because the DoorDash window has closed. Order 195145 was a completed DoorDash order placed on 2026-09-29 (UTC). It had $42.37 gross sales and $38.57 total. Today is 2026-10-24, which is 25 days later. DoorDash allows 7 days from the order date, and a dispute filed after that is rejected automatically .

    The order was also over $40, so a packing photo would have been needed to dispute it. I didn't check whether one exists.

    The order has no identified customer, so the repeat-dispute exception for flagged customers doesn't apply . The chargeback stands. If no packing photo exists, the policy says to accept it and log it as a packing miss.

    4,127 tokens in (3,121 from cache), 397 out

  8. Code

    Citations checked

    Every section cited was one that was retrieved: Marketplace Terms §3, Missing or Incorrect Items; Marketplace Terms §7, Repeat Disputes.

answered

  • $0.0113to answer, $0.0281 without the prompt cache
  • 6.5 s6.2 s in the model
  • 7steps, 10,896 tokens in, 633 out