Persona fine-tuning data explorer

10 policy cases8 source documents3 team workflows53 correlated export views

Candidate release. Tasks, drafts, annotations and team exchanges are synthetic and authored. Exact evidence excerpts are retained in the account-only research files. Independent review and training admission remain pending. These are retrospective research exercises, not diplomatic transcripts.

Collaborative workflows

Country analysts → source verifier → synthesis editor. Each agent has a separate completion target; only its visible input is supplied.

Climate commitments

Prepare an evidence-grounded comparison of the UK, Indian and Brazilian commitments in the supplied dated documents. Can the percentages be ranked directly as equivalent reductions? Keep each target’s metric, baseline, horizon and scope.

Synthetic draft to audit
The UK, India and Brazil promise equivalent total-emissions reductions of 81%, 45% and 67%, all on a 1990 baseline. Their ambition can therefore be ranked directly by these percentages.

Gbr Analyst

{
  "brief": "The UK target is at least an 81% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2035 relative to 1990, excluding international aviation and shipping.",
  "facts": {
    "metric": "greenhouse-gas emissions reduction",
    "reduction_percent_minimum": 81,
    "baseline_year": 1990,
    "target_year": 2035,
    "excluded_sectors": [
      "international aviation",
      "international shipping"
    ],
    "achievement_verified": null
  },
  "evidence_ids": [
    "GBR-climate-2035-2025"
  ],
  "evidence_limit": "This passage does not establish delivery of the target or a GDP-intensity commitment."
}

Ind Analyst

{
  "brief": "India commits to reduce emissions intensity of GDP by 45% by 2030 from 2005, and achieve about 50% cumulative installed electric-power capacity from non-fossil resources by 2030.",
  "facts": {
    "emissions_metric": "emissions intensity of GDP",
    "reduction_percent": 45,
    "baseline_year": 2005,
    "target_year": 2030,
    "capacity_metric": "cumulative installed electric-power capacity",
    "non_fossil_capacity_percent_approximate": 50,
    "absolute_emissions_reduction_percent": null,
    "renewable_generation_percent": null
  },
  "evidence_ids": [
    "IND-climate-2030-2022"
  ],
  "evidence_limit": "The excerpt provides no absolute-emissions trajectory or generation-share target."
}

Bra Analyst

{
  "brief": "Brazil states a 59–67% emissions-reduction range for 2035 relative to 2005, consistent with an absolute emissions level of 1.05–0.85 GtCO2e using GWP AR5.",
  "facts": {
    "reduction_percent_range": [
      59,
      67
    ],
    "baseline_year": 2005,
    "target_year": 2035,
    "absolute_emissions_gtco2e_corresponding": [
      1.05,
      0.85
    ],
    "accounting_metric": "GWP AR5",
    "achievement_verified": null
  },
  "evidence_ids": [
    "BRA-climate-2035-2024"
  ],
  "evidence_limit": "The passage gives a target range, not proof of attainment or an unqualified promise to reach its upper reduction bound."
}

Verifier

{
  "verdict": "needs_revision",
  "findings": [
    {
      "explanation": "The UK figure is at least 81% by 2035 relative to 1990, with international aviation and shipping excluded. The draft loses the lower-bound qualification and exclusions.",
      "evidence_ids": [
        "GBR-climate-2035-2025"
      ]
    },
    {
      "explanation": "India’s 45% is emissions intensity of GDP relative to 2005 by 2030, not total emissions. Its approximately 50% non-fossil installed-capacity commitment is a separate metric.",
      "evidence_ids": [
        "IND-climate-2030-2022"
      ]
    },
    {
      "explanation": "Brazil gives a 59–67% range for 2035 relative to 2005, not a single 67% commitment or a 1990 baseline.",
      "evidence_ids": [
        "BRA-climate-2035-2024"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "instruction": "Repair only what the cited excerpts justify. Keep comparative conclusions distinct from observed government agreements."
}

Editor

The UK document states at least an 81% greenhouse-gas emissions reduction by 2035 relative to 1990, excluding international aviation and shipping. [GBR-climate-2035-2025]

India’s announcement specifies a 45% reduction in emissions intensity of GDP by 2030 from 2005 and about 50% cumulative installed electric-power capacity from non-fossil resources by 2030. Neither total emissions nor electricity generation is the metric of those respective commitments. [IND-climate-2030-2022]

Brazil’s Portuguese NDC states a 59–67% emissions-reduction range for 2035 relative to 2005, consistent with 1.05–0.85 GtCO2e using GWP AR5. [BRA-climate-2035-2024]

These are not directly comparable percentages: their metrics, baselines, horizons and stated coverage differ. The supplied passages do not establish a common quantitative ranking of ambition or actual target delivery.

Leakage component: policy-workshop:6d76e93676599840

WTO development flexibility

Compare these dated Indian and Brazilian WTO government reports. Identify a difference in their described national positions and a compatible principle. Assess the wording “members able to do so may voluntarily forgo treatment while needs-based flexibility remains available to developing members.” Do not predict a vote or claim a negotiated agreement.

Synthetic draft to audit
Brazil’s waiver means it opposes flexibility for all developing countries, whereas India rejects even voluntary waivers. A joint statement preserving flexibility is incompatible with both reports.

Ind Analyst

{
  "brief": "The Indian report argues for preserving special and differential treatment for developing members and regards voluntary decisions by members able to forgo it as more acceptable.",
  "facts": {
    "general_position": "preserve special and differential treatment for developing members",
    "waiver_basis": "voluntary for members considering themselves able",
    "india_waiver_observed": null,
    "current_position_verified": null
  },
  "evidence_ids": [
    "IND-wto-differential-treatment-2020"
  ],
  "evidence_limit": "The report does not establish that India itself waived treatment or that this remains its current position."
}

Bra Analyst

{
  "brief": "Brazil’s 2022 report describes its 2019 decision to begin forgoing special and differential treatment in current and future negotiations, while supporting needs-based flexibility for other developing members.",
  "facts": {
    "reported_decision_year": 2019,
    "brazil_choice": "begin forgoing special and differential treatment",
    "scope": "current and future WTO negotiations",
    "others": "needs-based flexibility for least-developed and other developing members",
    "current_position_verified": null
  },
  "evidence_ids": [
    "BRA-wto-differential-treatment-2022"
  ],
  "evidence_limit": "The report is dated evidence; it does not verify that Brazil’s position remains unchanged today."
}

Verifier

{
  "verdict": "needs_revision",
  "findings": [
    {
      "explanation": "India calls preservation a priority but regards voluntary decisions by members able to forgo treatment as more acceptable. The draft wrongly makes its objection universal.",
      "evidence_ids": [
        "IND-wto-differential-treatment-2020"
      ]
    },
    {
      "explanation": "Brazil describes its own waiver and still supports needs-based flexibility for other developing members. The draft projects Brazil’s choice onto all countries.",
      "evidence_ids": [
        "BRA-wto-differential-treatment-2022"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "instruction": "Repair only what the cited excerpts justify. Keep comparative conclusions distinct from observed government agreements."
}

Editor

India’s report argues that special and differential treatment should remain available to developing members; it regards voluntary decisions by members able to forgo it as more acceptable. It does not report an Indian waiver. [IND-wto-differential-treatment-2020]

Brazil’s 2022 report describes its 2019 decision to begin forgoing treatment in current and future WTO negotiations, alongside support for needs-based flexibility for least-developed and other developing members. [BRA-wto-differential-treatment-2022]

The proposed wording is compatible at this general level with the passages: voluntary waiver and continuing flexibility can coexist. This is an authored textual compatibility assessment, not evidence that either government accepted a joint text. The reports have different dates and establish neither a simultaneous negotiation nor either country’s present position.

Leakage component: policy-workshop:d267d7bc47f9a46c

European and Atlantic defence

Compare France’s European defence priorities with the UK’s NATO First organising priority in these 2025 strategy excerpts. Identify shared ground and distinct emphasis without inventing procurement decisions or reciprocal concessions.

Synthetic draft to audit
France proposes European defence outside the Atlantic Alliance, while the UK’s NATO First approach commits it to buying only US equipment. The passages therefore establish incompatible procurement positions.

Fra Analyst

{
  "brief": "The review calls for a stronger European pillar within the Atlantic Alliance, increased defence and national-security capabilities, and prioritising European-made solutions.",
  "facts": {
    "alliance_relationship": "European pillar within the Atlantic Alliance",
    "capability_priority": "increase defence and national-security capabilities",
    "procurement_preference": "European-made solutions",
    "specific_procurement_decision": null
  },
  "evidence_ids": [
    "FRA-european-defence-2025"
  ],
  "evidence_limit": "The passage does not settle a specific procurement contract or deployment."
}

Gbr Analyst

{
  "brief": "The strategy makes NATO foremost in how the UK armed forces plan, invest, train and equip themselves.",
  "facts": {
    "organising_priority": "NATO foremost",
    "applies_to": [
      "planning",
      "investment",
      "training",
      "equipment"
    ],
    "specific_deployment": null
  },
  "evidence_ids": [
    "GBR-nato-first-2025"
  ],
  "evidence_limit": "The organising priority alone does not resolve an individual purchase or deployment."
}

Verifier

{
  "verdict": "needs_revision",
  "findings": [
    {
      "explanation": "The French excerpt expressly strengthens the European pillar within the Atlantic Alliance and prioritises European-made solutions. It does not establish withdrawal from the alliance.",
      "evidence_ids": [
        "FRA-european-defence-2025"
      ]
    },
    {
      "explanation": "The UK excerpt makes NATO foremost in planning, investment, training and equipment. It supplies no exclusive equipment-origin rule.",
      "evidence_ids": [
        "GBR-nato-first-2025"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "instruction": "Repair only what the cited excerpts justify. Keep comparative conclusions distinct from observed government agreements."
}

Editor

The French review calls for strengthening the European pillar within the Atlantic Alliance, investing in defence and national-security capabilities, and prioritising European-made solutions. [FRA-european-defence-2025]

The UK strategy makes NATO foremost in armed-forces planning, investment, training and equipment. It does not specify an exclusive national origin for equipment in the supplied passage. [GBR-nato-first-2025]

Both excerpts give a role to the Atlantic framework. France explicitly adds European capability and procurement priorities, while the UK passage states an organising priority for its armed forces. These excerpts alone neither establish an incompatible procurement decision nor prove agreement on a particular purchase or deployment. This is a comparison of public documents, not a record of bilateral bargaining.

Leakage component: policy-workshop:c9485550e4f51ff4

Factual corrections

FRA-european-defence-2025

Edit a delegation briefing on European defence procurement. Preserve the relationship between European capability building and the Atlantic Alliance.

Rejected · synthetic error

The review calls for a stronger European pillar outside the Atlantic Alliance, increased defence and national-security capabilities, and prioritising European-made solutions.

Chosen · source-backed correction

The review calls for a stronger European pillar within the Atlantic Alliance, increased defence and national-security capabilities, and prioritising European-made solutions.

The passage explicitly places the stronger European pillar within the Atlantic Alliance. European procurement preferences do not establish an intention to leave that framework.

Evidence limit: The passage does not settle a specific procurement contract or deployment.

Exact source evidence and provenance

Exact source text is available in the account-only research files.

Publisher source · en · policy date 2025-07-14

Character offsets 11941–12481; raw SHA256 036a958fcc610c446add5cc8ee5df9af1cc06663313f2ccc146141d14d64e6ca

FRA-nuclear-doctrine-2025

Check a policy memo summarising the published allocation of nuclear authority and the precision of the doctrine. Do not supply operational scenarios.

Rejected · synthetic error

The review assigns nuclear use to the President, describes a strictly defensive purpose, and publicly specifies the exact circumstances.

Chosen · source-backed correction

The review assigns nuclear use to the President, describes a strictly defensive purpose, and deliberately leaves the exact circumstances ambiguous.

Paragraph 169 explicitly retains deliberate ambiguity about exact circumstances. The published defensive purpose and presidential authority do not supply an exact decision rule.

Evidence limit: An exact use threshold cannot be recovered from this passage.

Exact source evidence and provenance

Exact source text is available in the account-only research files.

Publisher source · en · policy date 2025-07-14

Character offsets 87373–88447; raw SHA256 036a958fcc610c446add5cc8ee5df9af1cc06663313f2ccc146141d14d64e6ca

GBR-nato-first-2025

Check a staff briefing that translates NATO First into concrete defence-planning implications.

Rejected · synthetic error

The strategy makes NATO secondary in how the UK armed forces plan, invest, train and equip themselves.

Chosen · source-backed correction

The strategy makes NATO foremost in how the UK armed forces plan, invest, train and equip themselves.

The source expressly says NATO will be foremost across planning, investment, training and equipment; making it secondary reverses the stated priority.

Evidence limit: The organising priority alone does not resolve an individual purchase or deployment.

Exact source evidence and provenance

Exact source text is available in the account-only research files.

Publisher source · en · policy date 2025-06-24

Character offsets 58966–59201; raw SHA256 e7b0d1a11c9a8a1cbc7d125cfc0d1505162f3a3af1f8ae45d124e9a9a6019e53

GBR-climate-2035-2025

Check a climate-comparison briefing, preserving the target, baseline year and sector coverage.

Rejected · synthetic error

The UK target is at least an 81% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2035 relative to 1990, including international aviation and shipping.

Chosen · source-backed correction

The UK target is at least an 81% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2035 relative to 1990, excluding international aviation and shipping.

The parenthetical in the source excludes international aviation and shipping. The percentage, baseline and target year do not cancel that exclusion.

Evidence limit: This passage does not establish delivery of the target or a GDP-intensity commitment.

Exact source evidence and provenance

Exact source text is available in the account-only research files.

Publisher source · en · policy date 2025-01-30

Character offsets 1750–1942; raw SHA256 83049a366ec2c98dbbc2ca6d80224649c654d37c61f3f556607b9a0849b53f7c

IND-climate-2030-2022

Check a climate-comparison briefing, distinguishing emissions metrics and installed capacity from generation.

Rejected · synthetic error

India commits to reduce total emissions by 45% by 2030 from 2005, and achieve about 50% cumulative installed electric-power capacity from non-fossil resources by 2030.

Chosen · source-backed correction

India commits to reduce emissions intensity of GDP by 45% by 2030 from 2005, and achieve about 50% cumulative installed electric-power capacity from non-fossil resources by 2030.

The 45% commitment is emissions intensity of GDP, not total emissions. The second commitment concerns non-fossil installed capacity, which must also remain distinct from electricity generated or renewables alone.

Evidence limit: The excerpt provides no absolute-emissions trajectory or generation-share target.

Exact source evidence and provenance

Exact source text is available in the account-only research files.

Publisher source · en · policy date 2022-08-03

Character offsets 1787–2044; raw SHA256 87fa92d7d43a2bedfdaaecf3e5bd2c373186d15b32aefb9d0f3809e2ae6ca9fc

IND-wto-differential-treatment-2020

Check a dated WTO briefing on whether forgoing special and differential treatment is voluntary or mandatory.

Rejected · synthetic error

The Indian report argues for preserving special and differential treatment for developing members and regards mandatory decisions by members able to forgo it as more acceptable.

Chosen · source-backed correction

The Indian report argues for preserving special and differential treatment for developing members and regards voluntary decisions by members able to forgo it as more acceptable.

Paragraph 6.7 describes members voluntarily deciding to forgo treatment. Converting that option into a requirement changes the proposal the report regards as more acceptable.

Evidence limit: The report does not establish that India itself waived treatment or that this remains its current position.

Exact source evidence and provenance

Exact source text is available in the account-only research files.

Publisher source · en · policy date 2020-11-25

Character offsets 55821–56748; raw SHA256 bae4c705901a78344b854ff8e1939939acb5bbc330f0ac83c840ee295e2824eb

IND-fisheries-subsidies-2020

Check a fisheries-subsidy briefing that must preserve both subsidy disciplines and livelihood qualifications.

Rejected · synthetic error

The Indian report supports strong disciplines on harmful fisheries subsidies while rejecting adequate policy space for subsistence, artisanal and small-scale fishers.

Chosen · source-backed correction

The Indian report supports strong disciplines on harmful fisheries subsidies while calling for adequate policy space for subsistence, artisanal and small-scale fishers.

The report supports disciplines and explicitly says adequate policy space is required for the specified fishers. Reversing that qualification misrepresents its balance of sustainability and livelihoods.

Evidence limit: The passage does not specify a negotiated exemption duration, monetary threshold or final treaty outcome.

Exact source evidence and provenance

Exact source text is available in the account-only research files.

Publisher source · en · policy date 2020-11-25

Character offsets 56773–58057; raw SHA256 bae4c705901a78344b854ff8e1939939acb5bbc330f0ac83c840ee295e2824eb

BRA-climate-2035-2024

Check an English briefing derived from a Portuguese NDC passage. Preserve the range, baseline and accounting metric.

Rejected · synthetic error

Brazil states a 59–67% emissions-reduction range for 2035 relative to 1990, consistent with an absolute emissions level of 1.05–0.85 GtCO2e using GWP AR5.

Chosen · source-backed correction

Brazil states a 59–67% emissions-reduction range for 2035 relative to 2005, consistent with an absolute emissions level of 1.05–0.85 GtCO2e using GWP AR5.

The Portuguese passage says emissions in 2005. Replacing the baseline with 1990 makes the statement inconsistent with the source even though the range, target year and GWP AR5 levels remain unchanged.

Evidence limit: The passage gives a target range, not proof of attainment or an unqualified promise to reach its upper reduction bound.

Exact source evidence and provenance

Exact source text is available in the account-only research files.

Publisher source · pt · policy date 2024-11-13

Character offsets 83270–83593; raw SHA256 be5da304e86c320d60f791b15e6a1deef05fab1ef27986f431c25b81a0580421

BRA-wto-differential-treatment-2022

Check a dated WTO briefing, separating Brazil’s own choice from the flexibility it supports for other members.

Rejected · synthetic error

Brazil’s 2022 report describes its 2019 decision to begin forgoing special and differential treatment in current and future negotiations, while opposing needs-based flexibility for other developing members.

Chosen · source-backed correction

Brazil’s 2022 report describes its 2019 decision to begin forgoing special and differential treatment in current and future negotiations, while supporting needs-based flexibility for other developing members.

Paragraph 3.24 both reports Brazil’s own decision and supports flexibility for least-developed and other developing members according to their needs. Brazil’s waiver must not be projected onto every member.

Evidence limit: The report is dated evidence; it does not verify that Brazil’s position remains unchanged today.

Exact source evidence and provenance

Exact source text is available in the account-only research files.

Publisher source · en · policy date 2022-10-19

Character offsets 75440–76128; raw SHA256 4cbc5795cfa43ccc6cffa3e1f6aa19258eaf52ac2bfeee9d8a376904823fa623

BRA-unilateral-sanctions-2024

Check an English briefing of the attributed ministry note, retaining the distinction between national measures and Security Council sanctions.

Rejected · synthetic error

The attributed Brazilian ministry note opposes the Cuba embargo and extraterritorial discriminatory national laws, and characterises Security Council sanctions as unsupported by international law.

Chosen · source-backed correction

The attributed Brazilian ministry note opposes the Cuba embargo and extraterritorial discriminatory national laws, and characterises Security Council sanctions as supported by international law.

The attributed note presents Security Council adoption as the basis for sanctions supported by international law. The draft reverses that stated position. This is an attribution check, not an independent legal conclusion.

Evidence limit: The compendium attributes the note to 30 October 2024; its publication availability is unverified and it is unsuitable for historical forecasting.

Exact source evidence and provenance

Exact source text is available in the account-only research files.

Publisher source · pt · policy date 2024-10-30

Character offsets 144598–145058; raw SHA256 f96875377ba70c31451a2d8948389a8988f29931a42a427baeeaa404dc23de1e

Export formats

Complete training files require the owner’s Hugging Face login.

audit.sft.jsonl · 20 rows, with aligned manifest
revision.sft.jsonl · 10 rows, with aligned manifest
preference.dpo.jsonl · 10 rows, with aligned manifest
multiagent.sft.jsonl · 13 rows, with aligned manifest

Never randomly split these rows: all formats and connected source documents share leakage components. The 53 views are not 53 independent cases. No held-out evaluation has been manufactured from this small seed set.