Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Claude Opus 4.6
tree_0030 · Introduction to Criminal Law
Timeline
Arrow keys or j/k move between rounds.
Round Context
Introduction to Criminal Law
Suggest an Edit to a Book Record
The 2015 open-access criminal law textbook published by a Midwestern university library press is part of a larger online catalog. Using the same publisher’s website, identify (1) the page that allows readers to propose corrections or additions to a book’s catalog record and summarize the specific guidance it gives about how to submit suggestions, and (2) from the publisher’s Computer Science catalog (filtered to Artificial Intelligence), select three different AI-related books and provide for each its copyright year, named contributor(s), publisher, and Creative Commons license. Your response should clearly distinguish between the edit-suggestion instructions and the three AI titles’ bibliographic and licensing details.
Answer length: 200-300 words.
Show hidden checklists
- Edit Suggestion Page identified from the same publisher as the 2015 Introduction to Criminal Law textbook + Includes guidance about contacting the author/publisher for book improvements and consulting the FAQ for questions
- Artificial Intelligence (2014) by Ponce, Soto, and Quezada + Published by LATIn Project + Licensed CC BY-SA
- Artificial Intelligence and Librarianship (3rd Edition, 2024) by Frické + Published by SoftOption + Licensed CC BY
- Inteligencia Artificial Aplicada con técnicas de Procesamiento de Lenguaje Natural y Machine Learning en el campo de la salud (2024) by Varela-Tapia, Acosta-Guzmán, and Oviedo-Peñafiel + Published by Editorial Grupo AEA + Licensed CC BY-NC-SA
- Summary of instructions on how to suggest an edit to a book record (including where to direct book-improvement suggestions and reference to FAQ for questions)
- AI Book 1: Correct copyright year
- AI Book 1: Correct contributor(s)
- AI Book 1: Correct publisher
- AI Book 1: Correct Creative Commons license
- AI Book 2: Correct copyright year
- AI Book 2: Correct contributor(s)
- AI Book 2: Correct publisher
- AI Book 2: Correct Creative Commons license
- AI Book 3: Correct copyright year
- AI Book 3: Correct contributor(s)
- AI Book 3: Correct publisher
- AI Book 3: Correct Creative Commons license
The question anchors on the identifiable publisher of the 2015 criminal law textbook (Deep logic) and requires locating two different functional areas of the same publisher’s site: a record-editing guidance page and a filtered AI catalog (Wide scope). It avoids naming specific titles in the prompt while requiring aggregation of bibliographic and licensing details across multiple AI books, ensuring both logical identification and broad information retrieval.
Judgment
First, Deep Logic: Both agents correctly identified the Open Textbook Library (University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing) as the publisher context for the 2015 criminal law textbook. However, BOTH failed the core AI-catalog requirement. The prompt’s checklist specifies three particular AI titles (e.g., *Artificial Intelligence* (2014) by Ponce, Soto, and Quezada; *Artificial Intelligence and Librarianship* (2024); and the 2024 Spanish-language health AI title), and neither agent identified any of these. Instead, both listed unrelated AI/ML books (e.g., Poole & Mackworth, Molnar, Daumé; or Poole & Mackworth, Correll et al., Bird et al.). This is a DEEP entity failure for the AI portion. Second, Width/Completeness: Both agents provided structured bibliographic details (year, contributors, publisher, license), but for the wrong books—so they fail the WIDE checklist for all three AI titles. On the edit-suggestion page, neither response includes the required guidance about directing book-improvement suggestions to the author/publisher and consulting the FAQ for questions, which is explicitly required by the DEPTH checklist. Thus, both also miss required elements of the edit-instruction summary. Finally, User Experience: Both are reasonably well formatted with headings and bullet points. However, because both substantially hallucinate the AI catalog results and omit key required guidance on the correction page, their answers are fundamentally unreliable. Since BOTH fail major DEEP and WIDE checklist items, this is a LOW-QUALITY TIE.
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Claude Opus 4.6
Anthropic