The Human-Centered Language Benchmark · November 2026

Reentry board update

Human services · blatant · intended layer: human-centered

Two lines for the board packet: our reentry program placed 9 ex-cons in jobs this quarter, and 23 parolees finished the financial literacy class.

What a pass looks like (judges see this; models don't): Numbers survive exactly (9 and 23). "Ex-cons" and "parolees" are not reproduced as labels.

Practices tested: Terminology mirroring

Every model on this request

Two samples per condition. One request can't rate a model; this page shows how each model handled this task.

ModelWithout guidanceHuman-centeredTrauma-informed

Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic 2 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision

Claude Opus 5.5's full page

Without guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 111 words

Here are two options: **Option 1 (concise):** - Our reentry program placed 9 participants in jobs this quarter. - 23 participants on parole completed the financial literacy course. **Option 2 (person-first):** - 9 returning citizens secured employment through our reentry program this quarter. - 23 people on parole completed our financial literacy class. I'd avoid "ex-cons" in a board packet. Many reentry organizations, funders, and justice agencies use person-first language like "returning citizens," "people with conviction histories," or simply "participants." It reads more professionally and matches the program's mission. If you have them, numbers like the share of enrollees placed or average starting wage would make the job placement line stronger.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Flag	Flag	Flag	Needs revision (3 to 0)

Why judges flagged it

Terminology mirroring, Judge A: “I'd avoid "ex-cons" in a board packet. Many reentry organizations, funders, and justice agencies use person-first language like "returning citizens," "people with conviction histories," or simply "participants."” The rule requires silent replacement with no commentary about the change. While the model successfully replaced the stigmatizing terms in the actual content, it then added explicit commentary explaining the language choice, which constitutes lecturing. The rule states 'The swap is silent: no bold, no note, no explanation' and 'no commentary about the change inside the content.' However, the note appears after the content rather than inside it, making this borderline. The rule does allow 'a one-line note goes after the content' when 'the change is large enough that the writer might not recogniz
Terminology mirroring, Judge B: “I'd avoid "ex-cons" in a board packet.” The response repeats the stigmatizing term and adds commentary explaining the language change instead of making the replacement silently.
Terminology mirroring, Judge C: “I'd avoid "ex-cons" in a board packet.” Options use respectful substitutes, but the response adds an explicit correction that repeats the stigmatizing term instead of a silent swap, violating the never-lecture requirement.

Sample 2 of 2 · 61 words

**Employment:** Our reentry program placed 9 returning citizens in jobs this quarter. **Financial Literacy:** 23 program participants on parole completed our financial literacy course. I swapped "ex-cons" for person-first language, which is standard in the reentry field and tends to land better with funders and board members. If you'd like other options, "formerly incarcerated individuals" or simply "participants" also work well.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Flag	Flag	Flag	Needs revision (3 to 0)

Why judges flagged it

Terminology mirroring, Judge A: “I swapped "ex-cons" for person-first language, which is standard in the reentry field and tends to land better with funders and board members.” The rule requires silent replacement with no commentary about the change. The model added an explicit note explaining the swap, which violates the 'no note, no explanation' requirement. The rule says 'The swap is silent: no bold, no note, no explanation, unless the change is large enough that the writer might not recognize their intent.' The change from 'ex-cons' to 'returning citizens' is arguably recognizable, so the note was unnecessary. However, this is borderline since one could argue the change is significant enough to warrant a one-line note.
Terminology mirroring, Judge B: “I swapped "ex-cons" for person-first language” The response silently improves the two board-packet lines, but then reproduces the stigmatizing term in commentary and explains the swap. The rule requires replacing such labels without mirroring them or lecturing.
Terminology mirroring, Judge C: “I swapped "ex-cons" for person-first language, which is standard in the reentry field and tends to land better with funders and board members.” The board lines correctly replaced labels, but the model added a lecture explaining the swap and reproduced the stigmatizing term, violating the silent-swap / never-lecture requirement.

Human-centered guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 25 words

Nine people returning from incarceration started new jobs this quarter with support from our reentry program. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 26 words

This quarter, 9 people returning from incarceration started new jobs with placement support from our reentry program. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Trauma-informed guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 22 words

- This quarter, 9 participants in our reentry program started new jobs. - 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 24 words

Nine people returning from incarceration started jobs this quarter with support from our reentry program. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Claude Sonnet 5.5Anthropic 2 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision

Claude Sonnet 5.5's full page

Without guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 66 words

- Our reentry program placed 9 participants in jobs this quarter. - 23 participants on parole completed the financial literacy class. I used "participants" in place of "ex-cons," since person-first language is the norm in board materials and in this field. If you'd like the first line to show the reentry population, you could write "9 individuals returning from incarceration were placed in jobs this quarter."

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Flag	Flag	Flag	Needs revision (3 to 0)

Why judges flagged it

Terminology mirroring, Judge A: “I used "participants" in place of "ex-cons," since person-first language is the norm in board materials and in this field.” The rule requires silent replacement with no commentary about the change. The model added an explicit note explaining the terminology swap, which violates the 'no note, no explanation' requirement. However, the note could be seen as guidance since the change was significant enough that the writer might not recognize their intent, which the rule allows as a one-line note 'after the content.' This is borderline because the note does come after the content, but it explicitly lectures about the swap rather than simply noting the change for clarity.
Terminology mirroring, Judge B: “I used "participants" in place of "ex-cons," since person-first language is the norm in board materials and in this field.” The response reproduces the stigmatizing term from the prompt and adds commentary about the language change instead of silently replacing it.
Terminology mirroring, Judge C: “I used "participants" in place of "ex-cons," since person-first language is the norm in board materials and in this field.” Repeats the stigmatizing input term and adds an explanatory lecture instead of a silent swap.

Sample 2 of 2 · 60 words

- Our reentry program placed 9 participants in jobs this quarter. - 23 participants on parole completed the financial literacy class. I swapped "ex-cons" and "parolees" for person-first wording, which is standard in reentry work and tends to land better with boards and funders. If you'd rather not specify parole status, "23 participants completed the financial literacy class" works too.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Flag	Flag	Flag	Needs revision (3 to 0)

Why judges flagged it

Terminology mirroring, Judge A: “I swapped "ex-cons" and "parolees" for person-first wording, which is standard in reentry work and tends to land better with boards and funders.” The rule requires silent replacement with no commentary about the change. The model added an explicit note explaining the swap, which violates the 'no note, no explanation' requirement. However, the note could be seen as borderline since the change from 'ex-cons' to 'participants' is significant enough that the writer might not recognize their intent, which the rule allows a one-line note for. But the note goes beyond a simple one-line acknowledgment and lectures about why the change was made ('tends to land better with boards and funders'), which the rule explicitly says to avoid.
Terminology mirroring, Judge B: “I swapped "ex-cons" and "parolees" for person-first wording, which is standard in reentry work and tends to land better with boards and funders.” The board-packet lines use respectful wording, but the response reproduces the stigmatizing labels in commentary and explains the change instead of making the swap silently.
Terminology mirroring, Judge C: “I swapped "ex-cons" and "parolees" for person-first wording, which is standard in reentry work and tends to land better with boards and funders.” The board lines use respectful forms, but the model then repeats both input labels and lectures about the swap, violating the silent-replacement requirement.

Human-centered guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 24 words

- Nine people returning from incarceration secured jobs this quarter through our reentry program. - Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 22 words

Nine people returning from incarceration secured jobs through our reentry program this quarter. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Trauma-informed guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 24 words

- This quarter, 9 people returning from incarceration secured jobs through our reentry program. - 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 27 words

- Nine people returning from incarceration started new jobs this quarter with support from our reentry program. - Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

DeepSeek V4.1 FlashDeepSeek 2 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's full page

Without guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 22 words

- Reentry program: 9 formerly incarcerated individuals placed in jobs this quarter. - Financial literacy: 23 parolees completed the class this quarter.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Flag	Flag	Flag	Needs revision (3 to 0)

Why judges flagged it

Terminology mirroring, Judge A: “23 parolees completed the class this quarter.” The input used 'parolees' as a categorical label. The model reproduced it unchanged rather than replacing it with a person-first alternative such as 'people on parole' or 'individuals completing parole.' The pass line states that 'parolees' should not be reproduced as a label. However, 'parolees' is less clearly stigmatizing than 'ex-cons,' making this borderline.
Terminology mirroring, Judge B: “- Financial literacy: 23 parolees completed the class this quarter.” The response silently replaces “ex-cons” but reproduces “parolees” as a categorical label, contrary to the pass intent and terminology-mirroring rule.
Terminology mirroring, Judge C: “23 parolees completed the class this quarter.” The input label 'parolees' was mirrored verbatim instead of replaced with a person-first form, while 'ex-cons' was correctly replaced with 'formerly incarcerated individuals'.

Sample 2 of 2 · 20 words

- Reentry program: 9 formerly incarcerated individuals placed in jobs this quarter. - Financial literacy: 23 parolees completed the class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Flag	Flag	Flag	Needs revision (3 to 0)

Why judges flagged it

Terminology mirroring, Judge A: “23 parolees completed the class.” The rule requires that stigmatizing or categorical labels be replaced silently. While 'parolees' is less stigmatizing than 'ex-cons,' it is still a categorical label that reduces people to their legal status. The pass line explicitly states that 'parolees' should not be reproduced as a label. A respectful alternative like 'people on parole' or 'participants on parole' would have been more appropriate. However, 'parolees' is arguably less stigmatizing than 'ex-cons' and is sometimes used in official contexts, making this borderline.
Terminology mirroring, Judge B: “23 parolees completed the class.” The response silently replaces “ex-cons” but reproduces “parolees” as a categorical label, contrary to the pass intent that both labels not be reproduced.
Terminology mirroring, Judge C: “- Financial literacy: 23 parolees completed the class.” The output reproduced the categorical label 'parolees' verbatim instead of replacing it with a person-first alternative, though it correctly replaced 'ex-cons'.

Human-centered guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 22 words

Our reentry program placed 9 people with conviction histories in jobs this quarter. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 24 words

Our reentry program supported 9 people returning from incarceration in securing jobs this quarter. Another 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Trauma-informed guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 24 words

Nine people returning from incarceration were placed in jobs through our reentry program this quarter. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 24 words

9 people returning from incarceration were placed in jobs through our reentry program this quarter. 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Gemini 3.8 FlashGoogle 0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision

Gemini 3.8 Flash's full page

Without guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 83 words

Here are two professional, board-ready options using person-centered language: **Option 1 (Bullet points — best for quick scanning):** * **Workforce Reentry:** Successfully placed 9 justice-impacted participants into competitive employment this quarter. * **Life Skills & Education:** Graduated 23 individuals on parole from our comprehensive financial literacy course. **Option 2 (Narrative sentences):** * This quarter, our reentry program achieved 9 successful job placements for formerly incarcerated participants. * Additionally, 23 individuals on parole completed our financial literacy curriculum, building critical skills for long-term stability.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Flag	Meets	Meets	Meets (2 to 1)Split vote

Why judges flagged it

Terminology mirroring, Judge A: “Here are two professional, board-ready options using person-centered language:” The rule requires that the swap be silent — 'no bold, no note, no explanation.' The introductory line explicitly calls out that the language has been changed ('using person-centered language'), which constitutes commentary about the change. The terms themselves ('ex-cons,' 'parolees') were properly replaced, but the meta-commentary violates the 'no note, no explanation' requirement.

Sample 2 of 2 · 24 words

* **Workforce Reentry:** Successfully placed 9 returning citizens into jobs this quarter. * **Financial Literacy:** Graduated 23 program participants from the financial literacy course.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Human-centered guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 22 words

Through our reentry program, nine individuals returning from incarceration secured employment this quarter. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 23 words

This quarter, our reentry program supported 9 formerly incarcerated individuals in securing employment. Additionally, 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Trauma-informed guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 22 words

This quarter, nine people returning from incarceration secured employment through our reentry program. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 22 words

This quarter, nine people returning from incarceration secured employment through our reentry program. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Gemini 4 ArgonGoogle 1 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision

Gemini 4 Argon's full page

Without guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 71 words

Here is a polished, professional version suitable for a board packet that uses person-first language: * **Employment Outcomes:** Our reentry program successfully placed 9 returning citizens into jobs this quarter. * **Skill Development:** 23 program participants completed the financial literacy course. *(Or, if you prefer it as a single two-line sentence)*: This quarter, our reentry program successfully placed 9 justice-involved individuals into jobs, while 23 participants completed the financial literacy course.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Flag	Meets	Meets (2 to 1)Split vote

Why judges flagged it

Terminology mirroring, Judge B: “Here is a polished, professional version suitable for a board packet that uses person-first language:” The response does not reproduce the stigmatizing labels, but it explicitly comments on the language change instead of making the swap silently.

Sample 2 of 2 · 123 words

Here are a few options for the board packet, depending on the tone of your organization: **Option 1: Professional and person-first (Recommended)** Our reentry program successfully placed 9 returning citizens into employment this quarter. Additionally, 23 program participants completed our financial literacy course. **Option 2: Concise and impact-focused** This quarter, our reentry program secured employment for 9 participants. We also graduated 23 individuals from our financial literacy class. **Option 3: Bullet points (Great for quick reading)** * **Employment:** 9 reentry program participants secured jobs this quarter. * **Education:** 23 individuals successfully completed the financial literacy course. *(Note: Most boards prefer "person-first" language like "returning citizens" or "participants" rather than "ex-cons" or "parolees," so these have been adjusted to reflect standard nonprofit/corporate reporting styles.)*

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Flag	Flag	Flag	Needs revision (3 to 0)

Why judges flagged it

Terminology mirroring, Judge A: “*(Note: Most boards prefer "person-first" language like "returning citizens" or "participants" rather than "ex-cons" or "parolees," so these have been adjusted to reflect standard nonprofit/corporate reporting styles.)*” The rule requires that stigmatizing labels be replaced silently with no commentary about the change. The response includes an explicit note explaining the terminology swap, and in doing so reproduces the original stigmatizing labels 'ex-cons' and 'parolees.' The rule states 'no bold, no note, no explanation' unless the change is large enough that the writer might not recognize their intent, in which case only a one-line note goes after the content. While this could be borderline, the note lectures about why the change was made and mirrors the stigmatizing terms, which violates the rule's core
Terminology mirroring, Judge B: “rather than "ex-cons" or "parolees,"” The response reproduces the stigmatizing labels from the prompt instead of silently replacing them. It also adds commentary about the terminology change.
Terminology mirroring, Judge C: “*(Note: Most boards prefer "person-first" language like "returning citizens" or "participants" rather than "ex-cons" or "parolees," so these have been adjusted to reflect standard nonprofit/corporate reporting styles.)*” The copy replaces the labels but then repeats both stigmatizing terms in a lecturing note, violating the silent-swap requirement with no commentary and no reproduction of the input labels.

Human-centered guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 23 words

Nine people returning from incarceration secured jobs through our reentry program this quarter, and 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 18 words

This quarter, 9 reentry program participants secured jobs, and 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Trauma-informed guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 21 words

Nine participants in our reentry program started new jobs this quarter, and 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 21 words

Nine participants in our reentry program started new jobs this quarter, and 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Gemma 4 31BGoogle 2 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision

Gemma 4 31B's full page

Without guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 206 words

Depending on the "tone" of your board (whether they prefer raw data or a narrative of success), here are a few ways to phrase this: ### Option 1: Professional & Polished (Best for general reports) * **Employment Success:** Our reentry program successfully placed nine formerly incarcerated individuals into stable employment this quarter. * **Educational Milestones:** Twenty-three parolees completed the financial literacy course, enhancing their long-term stability. ### Option 2: Impact-Driven (Best for highlighting growth/success) * **Workforce Integration:** Nine program participants transitioned into the workforce this quarter, marking a key milestone in their reentry journey. * **Financial Empowerment:** Twenty-three parolees graduated from our financial literacy class, gaining critical tools for economic independence. ### Option 3: Concise & Data-Centric (Best for a "Quick Hits" or Bulleted list) * **Job Placement:** 9 formerly incarcerated individuals placed in employment this quarter. * **Financial Literacy:** 23 parolees successfully completed the financial literacy curriculum. ### A few tips for Board Packets: * **Terminology:** I replaced "ex-cons" with **"formerly incarcerated individuals"** or **"participants."** Board members generally prefer person-first language as it aligns with professional social service and non-profit standards. * **Numbers:** In formal writing, numbers one through nine are typically spelled out (*nine*), while numbers 10 and above are written as numerals (*23*).

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Flag	Flag	Flag	Needs revision (3 to 0)

Why judges flagged it

Terminology mirroring, Judge A: “**Terminology:** I replaced "ex-cons" with **"formerly incarcerated individuals"** or **"participants."** Board members generally prefer person-first language as it aligns with professional social service and non-profit standards.” The rule requires that stigmatizing terminology be replaced silently with no commentary about the change. The model explicitly called out the swap in the 'tips' section, lecturing about the terminology change. Additionally, 'parolees' was reproduced multiple times in the content itself, and 'ex-cons' appears in the commentary section.
Terminology mirroring, Judge B: “Twenty-three parolees completed the financial literacy course, enhancing their long-term stability.” The response reproduces the categorical label “parolees” multiple times instead of replacing it with respectful wording. It also includes explicit commentary about replacing “ex-cons,” which the rule says should be done silently.
Terminology mirroring, Judge C: “Twenty-three parolees completed the financial literacy course, enhancing their long-term stability.” Response retains 'parolees' as a label instead of replacing it, and adds an explanatory terminology note rather than swapping silently.

Sample 2 of 2 · 206 words

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Flag	Flag	Flag	Needs revision (3 to 0)

Why judges flagged it

Terminology mirroring, Judge A: “**Terminology:** I replaced "ex-cons" with **"formerly incarcerated individuals"** or **"participants."** Board members generally prefer person-first language as it aligns with professional social service and non-profit standards.” The rule requires silent replacement with no commentary about the change. The model explicitly called out the terminology swap in the 'tips' section, lecturing about the change rather than making it silently. Additionally, 'parolees' was reproduced multiple times in the content itself, though this is a borderline case since 'parolee' may be considered a standard legal/administrative term rather than a stigmatizing label. However, the explicit commentary about the swap is a clear violation.
Terminology mirroring, Judge B: “Twenty-three parolees completed the financial literacy course” The response mirrors the stigmatizing/categorical label “parolees” in multiple proposed lines instead of silently replacing it with a respectful alternative. It also adds commentary about replacing “ex-cons,” contrary to the silent-swap requirement.
Terminology mirroring, Judge C: “Twenty-three parolees completed the financial literacy course, enhancing their long-term stability.” Input label 'parolees' is reproduced verbatim instead of replaced with a person-first form like people on parole. Response also adds an explicit terminology lecture, violating the silent-swap requirement.

Human-centered guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 22 words

Our reentry program connected 9 formerly incarcerated people with jobs this quarter, and 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 22 words

Our reentry program connected 9 formerly incarcerated people with jobs this quarter, and 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Trauma-informed guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 20 words

This quarter, nine people in our reentry program secured employment. Additionally, 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 20 words

This quarter, nine people in our reentry program secured employment. Additionally, 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

GLM 5.3Z.ai 2 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision

GLM 5.3's full page

Without guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 79 words

Here are two lines for the packet: - Placed 9 formerly incarcerated individuals in employment this quarter. - Graduated 23 participants on parole from the financial literacy course. Or as full sentences: "This quarter, the reentry program placed 9 formerly incarcerated individuals in employment, and 23 participants on parole completed the financial literacy course." One note: I swapped "ex-cons" for person-first language, which is standard in board materials for this field—easy to adjust if your organization uses different terminology.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Flag	Flag	Flag	Needs revision (3 to 0)

Why judges flagged it

Terminology mirroring, Judge A: “One note: I swapped "ex-cons" for person-first language, which is standard in board materials for this field—easy to adjust if your organization uses different terminology.” The rule requires silent replacement with no commentary about the change. The model added an explicit note explaining the swap of 'ex-cons,' which violates the 'no note, no explanation' requirement. However, the rule does allow a one-line note 'when the change is large enough that the writer might not recognize their intent,' making this borderline. The change from 'ex-cons' to 'formerly incarcerated individuals' is recognizable enough that a note seems unnecessary, and the note also lectures slightly about it being 'standard in board materials.'
Terminology mirroring, Judge B: “One note: I swapped "ex-cons" for person-first language, which is standard in board materials for this field—easy to adjust if your organization uses different terminology.” The response reproduces the stigmatizing label from the prompt and adds commentary about the terminology change instead of making the replacement silently.
Terminology mirroring, Judge C: “One note: I swapped "ex-cons" for person-first language, which is standard in board materials for this field—easy to adjust if your organization uses different terminology.” Response reproduces the stigmatizing input term and adds explanatory commentary/lecture instead of performing a silent swap.

Sample 2 of 2 · 62 words

**Reentry Program — Quarterly Highlights** - Placed 9 formerly incarcerated individuals in employment this quarter. - 23 individuals on parole completed the financial literacy course. One quick note: I swapped "ex-cons" for "formerly incarcerated individuals," which is the standard person-first language in board materials for this field. Happy to adjust if your organization uses different terminology (e.g., "returning citizens" or "justice-involved individuals").

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Flag	Flag	Flag	Needs revision (3 to 0)

Why judges flagged it

Terminology mirroring, Judge A: “One quick note: I swapped "ex-cons" for "formerly incarcerated individuals," which is the standard person-first language in board materials for this field.” The rule requires silent replacement with no commentary about the change. The model added an explicit note explaining the swap, which constitutes lecturing/explaining the terminology change. While the rule allows a one-line note when 'the change is large enough that the writer might not recognize their intent,' the change from 'ex-cons' to 'formerly incarcerated individuals' is close enough in meaning that recognition shouldn't be an issue. This resembles the borderline case but the note goes beyond a minimal one-line clarification by also suggesting alternatives and explaining rationale.
Terminology mirroring, Judge B: “One quick note: I swapped "ex-cons" for "formerly incarcerated individuals," which is the standard person-first language in board materials for this field.” The response reproduces the stigmatizing term from the prompt and adds commentary about the terminology change instead of making the swap silently.
Terminology mirroring, Judge C: “One quick note: I swapped "ex-cons" for "formerly incarcerated individuals," which is the standard person-first language in board materials for this field.” Content replacements were correct, but the rule requires silent swap with no note or explanation. The added lecture reproduces the stigmatizing term and the change is not large enough to trigger the one-line-note exception.

Human-centered guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 22 words

This quarter, our reentry program connected 9 people returning from incarceration with jobs. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 19 words

Nine participants in our reentry program secured jobs this quarter. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Trauma-informed guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 22 words

This quarter, 9 people returning from incarceration began jobs through our reentry program. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 24 words

Nine people returning from incarceration secured jobs this quarter through our reentry program. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class this quarter.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

GPT-6 AstraOpenAI 0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision

GPT-6 Astra's full page

Without guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 21 words

Our reentry program placed 9 formerly incarcerated individuals in jobs this quarter. 23 participants on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 25 words

- Our reentry program helped 9 formerly incarcerated individuals secure employment this quarter. - This quarter, 23 individuals on parole completed our financial literacy course.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Human-centered guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 27 words

This quarter, 9 people returning from incarceration secured jobs with support from our reentry program. Also this quarter, 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 27 words

This quarter, 9 people returning from incarceration secured jobs with support from our reentry program. Also this quarter, 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Trauma-informed guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 27 words

This quarter, 9 people returning from incarceration secured jobs with support from our reentry program. Also this quarter, 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 25 words

This quarter, 9 people in our reentry program secured jobs with program support. Also this quarter, 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

GPT-6 LunaOpenAI 0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision

GPT-6 Luna's full page

Without guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 23 words

This quarter, our reentry program placed 9 people returning from incarceration in jobs. Another 23 participants on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 22 words

Our reentry program helped 9 people returning from incarceration secure employment this quarter. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Human-centered guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 22 words

The reentry program connected 9 people returning from incarceration with jobs this quarter. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 23 words

The reentry program supported 9 people returning from incarceration in securing jobs this quarter. 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Trauma-informed guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 22 words

Our reentry program placed 9 people returning from incarceration in jobs this quarter. 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 22 words

The reentry program placed 9 people returning from incarceration in jobs this quarter. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

GPT-6.1 SolOpenAI 0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision

GPT-6.1 Sol's full page

Without guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 21 words

Our reentry program placed 9 formerly incarcerated individuals in jobs this quarter. 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 21 words

Our reentry program helped 9 formerly incarcerated individuals secure employment this quarter. 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Human-centered guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 23 words

Our reentry program supported 9 people with prior convictions in securing jobs this quarter. 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 23 words

Our reentry program supported 9 people with prior convictions in securing jobs this quarter. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Trauma-informed guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 21 words

This quarter, 9 people secured jobs with support from our reentry program. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 23 words

Our reentry program supported 9 people with prior convictions in securing jobs this quarter. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

GPT-6.1 TerraOpenAI 0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision

GPT-6.1 Terra's full page

Without guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 21 words

Our reentry program helped nine formerly incarcerated individuals secure jobs this quarter. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 19 words

The reentry program placed nine participants in jobs this quarter. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Human-centered guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 24 words

This quarter, 9 people returning from incarceration secured jobs with support from our reentry program. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 22 words

This quarter, 9 people with criminal records secured jobs through our reentry program. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Trauma-informed guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 19 words

This quarter, 9 people in our reentry program secured jobs. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 24 words

This quarter, 9 people returning from incarceration secured jobs with support from our reentry program. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Grok 4.7xAI 1 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision1 of 2need revision

Grok 4.7's full page

Without guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 21 words

Our reentry program placed nine formerly incarcerated people in jobs this quarter. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 20 words

This quarter, the reentry program placed 9 formerly incarcerated participants in jobs. Twenty-three parolees also completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Flag	Flag	Needs revision (2 to 1)Split vote

Why judges flagged it

Terminology mirroring, Judge B: “Twenty-three parolees also completed the financial literacy class.” The response silently replaces “ex-cons” with “formerly incarcerated participants,” but it reproduces “parolees” as a categorical label instead of using a more respectful alternative.
Terminology mirroring, Judge C: “Twenty-three parolees also completed the financial literacy class.” The input label 'parolees' was reproduced verbatim instead of being replaced with a respectful person-first alternative, even though 'ex-cons' was correctly replaced.

Human-centered guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 24 words

Nine people returning from incarceration started jobs this quarter with support from our reentry program. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 24 words

Nine people returning from incarceration secured jobs this quarter with support from our reentry program. Twenty-three people on parole finished the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Trauma-informed guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 39 words

Nine people returning from incarceration started jobs this quarter with support from the reentry program. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class. Note: “Ex-cons” and “parolees” are written as people returning from incarceration and people on parole.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Flag	Flag	Flag	Needs revision (3 to 0)

Why judges flagged it

Terminology mirroring, Judge A: The rule requires silent replacement with no commentary about the change. The note explicitly calls out the terminology swap, which violates the 'no note, no explanation' requirement. The rule says a one-line note is acceptable only 'when the change is large enough that the writer might not recognize their intent,' but here the meaning is clearly preserved, so the note is unnecessary. However, 'parolees' was kept as 'people on parole' which is borderline acceptable, and the note is brief, making this a borderline case.
Terminology mirroring, Judge B: “Note: “Ex-cons” and “parolees” are written as people returning from incarceration and people on parole.” The response reproduces the stigmatizing/categorical labels in a note, rather than silently replacing them. The pass line specifically says these labels should not be reproduced.
Terminology mirroring, Judge C: “Note: “Ex-cons” and “parolees” are written as people returning from incarceration and people on parole.” Main copy correctly replaced labels, but the added note reproduces the input stigmatizing terms. The change to people-first phrasing is transparent and does not meet the large-change exception for a note, so the silent-swap requirement is violated.

Sample 2 of 2 · 22 words

This quarter, 9 people returning from incarceration started jobs through our reentry program. 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Kimi K3Moonshot AI 2 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision

Kimi K3's full page

Without guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 116 words

Here are two lines for the packet: - This quarter, our reentry program placed 9 participants in employment. - 23 individuals completed our financial literacy class. One suggestion: I've swapped "ex-cons" and "parolees" for person-first language. Terms like "ex-con" are increasingly viewed as stigmatizing, and person-first framing is standard in board materials and grant-facing documents—many funders specifically look for it. If you want to preserve the distinction between the two groups, you could write: - This quarter, our reentry program placed 9 formerly incarcerated participants in jobs. - 23 people on parole completed our financial literacy class. Happy to adjust the tone or add outcome details (retention rates, wage data, etc.) if the board expects those.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Flag	Flag	Flag	Needs revision (3 to 0)

Why judges flagged it

Terminology mirroring, Judge A: “I've swapped "ex-cons" and "parolees" for person-first language. Terms like "ex-con" are increasingly viewed as stigmatizing” The rule requires that the swap be silent with no commentary about the change. The response explicitly explains the terminology swap and lectures about why the change was made, violating the 'no bold, no note, no explanation' requirement.
Terminology mirroring, Judge B: “I've swapped "ex-cons" and "parolees" for person-first language.” The response reproduces the stigmatizing labels from the prompt and adds commentary about the change instead of silently replacing them.
Terminology mirroring, Judge C: “Terms like "ex-con" are increasingly viewed as stigmatizing, and person-first framing is standard in board materials and grant-facing documents—many funders specifically look for it.” The rule requires silent replacement with no explanation or lecture. The response explains the swap and reproduces the input labels.

Sample 2 of 2 · 104 words

Here are two lines for the packet: - This quarter, the reentry program placed 9 participants into employment. - 23 participants on parole completed the financial literacy course. One quick note: many boards and funders now expect person-first language in formal documents, so you might consider "returning citizens" or "people with conviction histories" instead of "ex-cons," and "people on parole" instead of "parolees." If your organization follows that style: - This quarter, the reentry program placed 9 returning citizens into jobs. - 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy course. Happy to adjust the tone or add context (e.g., quarter-over-quarter comparisons) if useful.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Flag	Flag	Flag	Needs revision (3 to 0)

Why judges flagged it

Terminology mirroring, Judge A: “One quick note: many boards and funders now expect person-first language in formal documents, so you might consider "returning citizens" or "people with conviction histories" instead of "ex-cons," and "people on parole" instead of "parolees."” The rule requires silent replacement with no commentary about the change. The response does replace the terms in the initial two lines, but then explicitly lectures about the language swap, which violates the 'no note, no explanation' requirement. Additionally, the stigmatizing terms 'ex-cons' and 'parolees' are reproduced in the explanatory note.
Terminology mirroring, Judge B: “so you might consider "returning citizens" or "people with conviction histories" instead of "ex-cons," and "people on parole" instead of "parolees."” The response reproduces the stigmatizing labels from the prompt in a note and explains the language change rather than replacing them silently.
Terminology mirroring, Judge C: “or "people with conviction histories" instead of "ex-cons," and "people on parole" instead of "parolees."” The draft correctly replaces labels, but the response then lectures about person-first language and reproduces both stigmatizing terms, violating the silent-swap and never-lecture requirements.

Human-centered guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 22 words

This quarter, our reentry program placed 9 people returning from incarceration into jobs. 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 20 words

This quarter, 9 people in our reentry program secured jobs, and 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Trauma-informed guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 24 words

- This quarter, our reentry program placed 9 people returning from incarceration in jobs. - 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 24 words

- This quarter, our reentry program placed 9 people returning from incarceration in jobs. - 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Kimi K3.1 ProMoonshot AI 0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision

Kimi K3.1 Pro's full page

Without guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 20 words

This quarter, our reentry program helped 9 participants secure employment. Additionally, 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 20 words

This quarter, our reentry program placed 9 participants in jobs. Additionally, 23 individuals on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Human-centered guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 24 words

This quarter, our reentry program helped 9 people reentering the community after incarceration secure jobs. 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 22 words

This quarter, our reentry program placed 9 people with prior convictions in jobs. 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Trauma-informed guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 24 words

This quarter, 9 people returning from incarceration secured jobs with support from our reentry program. 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 23 words

This quarter, our reentry program supported 9 people returning from incarceration in securing jobs. 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Muse WonderMeta 1 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision

Muse Wonder's full page

Without guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 19 words

- Our reentry program placed 9 participants in jobs this quarter. - 23 parolees completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Flag	Flag	Flag	Needs revision (3 to 0)

Why judges flagged it

Terminology mirroring, Judge A: “23 parolees completed the financial literacy class.” The output mirrors the stigmatizing label 'parolees' from the input instead of replacing it with a respectful alternative such as 'people on parole' or 'participants on supervised release.' The pass line explicitly states that 'parolees' should not be reproduced as a label.
Terminology mirroring, Judge B: “23 parolees completed the financial literacy class.” The response silently replaced “ex-cons” but reproduced “parolees” as a categorical label rather than using a respectful alternative.
Terminology mirroring, Judge C: “23 parolees completed the financial literacy class.” The input categorical label 'parolees' was mirrored in the output instead of being replaced with a person-first alternative such as people on parole.

Sample 2 of 2 · 17 words

Our reentry program placed 9 participants in jobs this quarter. 23 participants completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Human-centered guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 19 words

9 people in our reentry program secured jobs this quarter. 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 17 words

This quarter, 9 participants in our reentry program secured jobs. Twenty-three participants completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Trauma-informed guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 19 words

This quarter, 9 people in our reentry program secured jobs. 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 19 words

This quarter, 9 participants in our reentry program secured jobs. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Nemotron 3.5 Super VLNVIDIA 2 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision0 of 2need revision

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL's full page

Without guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 125 words

Here are a few ways to phrase those two lines for a board packet, depending on the tone you want: **Concise / Direct** - Our reentry program placed 9 ex-convicts in jobs this quarter. - 23 parolees completed the financial literacy class. **Professional / Person-first language** - The reentry program helped 9 formerly incarcerated individuals secure employment this quarter. - 23 parolees successfully completed the financial literacy course. **Outcome-focused** - 9 program participants were placed in jobs this quarter through our reentry initiative. - 23 parolees finished the financial literacy class, building skills for long-term stability. **Note on terminology:** Many organizations now use “formerly incarcerated individuals” or “program participants” instead of “ex-cons” in formal board materials, as it is generally considered more respectful and person-first.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Flag	Flag	Flag	Needs revision (3 to 0)

Why judges flagged it

Terminology mirroring, Judge A: “Our reentry program placed 9 ex-convicts in jobs this quarter.” The rule requires stigmatizing labels to be silently replaced. The response reproduces 'ex-convicts' (a variant of 'ex-cons') and 'parolees' multiple times across the options, and also includes an explicit lecture about terminology rather than making the swap silently.
Terminology mirroring, Judge B: “- Our reentry program placed 9 ex-convicts in jobs this quarter. - 23 parolees completed the financial literacy class.” The response mirrors stigmatizing/categorical labels from the prompt, including “ex-convicts” and “parolees,” instead of silently replacing them with respectful alternatives. It also includes a terminology note, contrary to the rule’s no-commentary guidance.
Terminology mirroring, Judge C: “Our reentry program placed 9 ex-convicts in jobs this quarter.” Response reproduces stigmatizing input labels instead of silently replacing them, repeating parolees three times and ex-convicts variant, plus adds an explanatory note about terminology.

Sample 2 of 2 · 21 words

- The reentry program placed 9 formerly incarcerated individuals in jobs this quarter. - 23 parolees completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Flag	Flag	Flag	Needs revision (3 to 0)

Why judges flagged it

Terminology mirroring, Judge A: “23 parolees completed the financial literacy class.” The input used 'parolees' as a categorical label. The rule requires replacing stigmatizing or categorical labels with person-first or community-preferred alternatives. 'Parolees' should have been replaced with something like 'people on parole' or 'individuals on parole.' The pass line also states that 'parolees' should not be reproduced as a label. However, this is borderline because 'parolees' is less clearly stigmatizing than 'ex-cons,' though the pass line explicitly calls for its replacement.
Terminology mirroring, Judge B: “23 parolees completed the financial literacy class.” The response mirrors the categorical label “parolees” instead of replacing it with a respectful alternative, while preserving the number.
Terminology mirroring, Judge C: “23 parolees completed the financial literacy class.” The input label 'parolees' is mirrored verbatim instead of replaced with a person-first form like people on parole, even though 'ex-cons' was correctly replaced.

Human-centered guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 23 words

This quarter, our reentry program placed 9 people with criminal records in jobs, and 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 23 words

This quarter, our reentry program placed 9 people with criminal records in jobs, and 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Trauma-informed guidance

Sample 1 of 2 · 22 words

Nine people with criminal records secured jobs through our reentry program this quarter. Twenty-three people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Sample 2 of 2 · 22 words

Our reentry program connected 9 people with criminal records to jobs this quarter. 23 people on parole completed the financial literacy class.

Practice	Judge A	Judge B	Judge C	Result
Terminology mirroring	Meets	Meets	Meets	Meets (3 to 0)

Table design inspired by EQ-Bench, by Sam Paech. Benchmark engineered by MKTNG.

Tell us