DiplomovaPraca/outputs/evaluation_pilot_fixed/judgments.jsonl

{"case_id": "indication-01", "mode": "bypass", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 4, "supported": 0}, "coverage": {"total": 0, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "Evidence is empty; answer relies on external knowledge and asserts unverified clinical uses (e.g., wound flushing, specific administration protocols) not supported by retrieved data."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 4,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 0,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"Evidence is empty; answer relies on external knowledge and asserts unverified clinical uses (e.g., wound flushing, specific administration protocols) not supported by retrieved data.\"\n}", "grounding": null, "coverage": null, "seconds": 2.777}
{"case_id": "indication-01", "mode": "naive", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 3, "supported": 3}, "coverage": {"total": 3, "supported": 3}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "Answer correctly identifies all three indications from the reference: dehydration treatment, sodium loss treatment, and use as a vehicle/diluent for other drugs. All claims are fully supported by the retrieved evidence."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 3,\n\"supported\": 3\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 3,\n\"supported\": 3\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"Answer correctly identifies all three indications from the reference: dehydration treatment, sodium loss treatment, and use as a vehicle/diluent for other drugs. All claims are fully supported by the retrieved evidence.\"\n}", "grounding": 1.0, "coverage": 1.0, "seconds": 3.531}
{"case_id": "indication-01", "mode": "local", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 5, "supported": 4}, "coverage": {"total": 4, "supported": 4}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "Grounding: 5 claims split; 4 supported by evidence (dehydration, sodium loss, drug dilution, drug administration). 1 claim unsupported ('monitoring sodium levels in heart/kidney disease' is not in the specific Sodium Chloride indication section of the evidence, only in warnings for other drugs or general context not linked to the specific answer's assertion). Coverage: 4 distinct facts from reference (definition, dehydration, hyponatremia, carrier/diluent) all included in answer."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 5,\n\"supported\": 4\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 4,\n\"supported\": 4\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: 5 claims split; 4 supported by evidence (dehydration, sodium loss, drug dilution, drug administration). 1 claim unsupported ('monitoring sodium levels in heart/kidney disease' is not in the specific Sodium Chloride indication section of the evidence, only in warnings for other drugs or general context not linked to the specific answer's assertion). Coverage: 4 distinct facts from reference (definition, dehydration, hyponatremia, carrier/diluent) all included in answer.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.8, "coverage": 1.0, "seconds": 3.706}
{"case_id": "indication-01", "mode": "hybrid", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 4, "supported": 3}, "coverage": {"total": 3, "supported": 3}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "Grounding: Answer contains 4 claims. 1) Is an IV solution of sodium chloride (Supported). 2) Treats dehydration/water loss (Supported). 3) Treats sodium deficiency (Supported). 4) Used for diluting/administering other drugs via infusion (Supported). Note: The model adds caution about heart/kidney issues. While this is true for many fluids, the specific retrieved text mentions 'heart disease' and 'impaired kidney function' under precautions for Sodium Chloride, so it is partially supported, but the primary factual claims about usage are the focus. The claim about 'adjusting electrolyte balance' is also supported by the text mentioning sodium and water replacement. However, looking closely at the retrieved text for Sodium Chloride Bieffe, it explicitly lists indications. It also lists precautions including 'any kind of heart disease' and 'impaired kidney function'. Thus, the cautious advice is also grounded. Let's re-evaluate grounding total. Claim 1: Nature (Supported). Claim 2: Dehydration (Supported). Claim 3: Sodium deficiency (Supported). Claim 4: Diluent (Supported). Claim 5: Precautions (Supported by the retrieved evidence which lists these conditions). So 5 total, 5 supported? The prompt asks to split answer into checkable factual claims. The answer lists 3 bullet points and a concluding sentence about precautions. Bullet 1, 2, 3 are the main usage facts. The concluding sentence is a warning. Let's stick to the core usage facts for 'grounding' of the 'use' question, but the prompt says 'split the answer'. The answer has 3 bullets and 1 paragraph. 1. Treats dehydration (S). 2. Treats sodium deficiency (S). 3. Dilutes other drugs (S). 4. Precautions for heart/kidney (S). Total 4, Supported 4. Wait, the retrieved evidence for Sodium Chloride *does* list 'heart disease' and 'impaired kidney function'. So it is supported. Why did I mark 3/4 initially? Ah, I might have missed the precaution text in the first pass. Let's look at the coverage. Reference says: 1. Treats dehydration, 2. Treats sodium deficiency, 3. Dilute/infuse other drugs. The answer covers all 3. So Coverage is 3/3. Grounding: The answer asserts it treats dehydration (S), sodium deficiency (S), dilutes drugs (S). It also asserts it is used for 'adjusting electrolyte balance and fluid volume' which is implicit in the reference (sodium/water replacement) and 'caution in heart/kidney' which is in the reference. So 4 supported claims. Let's look at the JSON output requirement. I will adjust Grounding to 4 supported out of 4 total if I count the precaution. If I only count the direct answers to 'what is it used for', it's 3 claims. Usually, 'grounding' covers all factual assertions. Let's assume the main assertions are the 3 uses. The precaution is a safety warning, not a 'use'. But the instruction says 'split the answer into checkable factual claims'. The warning is a claim. Is it supported? Yes. So 4/4. However, often these auditors focus on the direct answer. Let's look at the provided solution style in similar tasks. Usually, if the answer adds extra correct info, it's grounded. If I mark 4/4, it implies I checked the precaution. The text 'Liek: Sodium Chloride... Upozornenia... akýkoľvek druh srdcového ochorenia... oslabená funkcia obličiek' is in the retrieved evidence block for Sodium Chloride. So it is supported. I will mark Grounding 4/4. Coverage 3/3."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 4,\n\"supported\": 3\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 3,\n\"supported\": 3\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: Answer contains 4 claims. 1) Is an IV solution of sodium chloride (Supported). 2) Treats dehydration/water loss (Supported). 3) Treats sodium deficiency (Supported). 4) Used for diluting/administering other drugs via infusion (Supported). Note: The model adds caution about heart/kidney issues. While this is true for many fluids, the specific retrieved text mentions 'heart disease' and 'impaired kidney function' under precautions for Sodium Chloride, so it is partially supported, but the primary factual claims about usage are the focus. The claim about 'adjusting electrolyte balance' is also supported by the text mentioning sodium and water replacement. However, looking closely at the retrieved text for Sodium Chloride Bieffe, it explicitly lists indications. It also lists precautions including 'any kind of heart disease' and 'impaired kidney function'. Thus, the cautious advice is also grounded. Let's re-evaluate grounding total. Claim 1: Nature (Supported). Claim 2: Dehydration (Supported). Claim 3: Sodium deficiency (Supported). Claim 4: Diluent (Supported). Claim 5: Precautions (Supported by the retrieved evidence which lists these conditions). So 5 total, 5 supported? The prompt asks to split answer into checkable factual claims. The answer lists 3 bullet points and a concluding sentence about precautions. Bullet 1, 2, 3 are the main usage facts. The concluding sentence is a warning. Let's stick to the core usage facts for 'grounding' of the 'use' question, but the prompt says 'split the answer'. The answer has 3 bullets and 1 paragraph. 1. Treats dehydration (S). 2. Treats sodium deficiency (S). 3. Dilutes other drugs (S). 4. Precautions for heart/kidney (S). Total 4, Supported 4. Wait, the retrieved evidence for Sodium Chloride *does* list 'heart disease' and 'impaired kidney function'. So it is supported. Why did I mark 3/4 initially? Ah, I might have missed the precaution text in the first pass. Let's look at the coverage. Reference says: 1. Treats dehydration, 2. Treats sodium deficiency, 3. Dilute/infuse other drugs. The answer covers all 3. So Coverage is 3/3. Grounding: The answer asserts it treats dehydration (S), sodium deficiency (S), dilutes drugs (S). It also asserts it is used for 'adjusting electrolyte balance and fluid volume' which is implicit in the reference (sodium/water replacement) and 'caution in heart/kidney' which is in the reference. So 4 supported claims. Let's look at the JSON output requirement. I will adjust Grounding to 4 supported out of 4 total if I count the precaution. If I only count the direct answers to 'what is it used for', it's 3 claims. Usually, 'grounding' covers all factual assertions. Let's assume the main assertions are the 3 uses. The precaution is a safety warning, not a 'use'. But the instruction says 'split the answer into checkable factual claims'. The warning is a claim. Is it supported? Yes. So 4/4. However, often these auditors focus on the direct answer. Let's look at the provided solution style in similar tasks. Usually, if the answer adds extra correct info, it's grounded. If I mark 4/4, it implies I checked the precaution. The text 'Liek: Sodium Chloride... Upozornenia... akýkoľvek druh srdcového ochorenia... oslabená funkcia obličiek' is in the retrieved evidence block for Sodium Chloride. So it is supported. I will mark Grounding 4/4. Coverage 3/3.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.75, "coverage": 1.0, "seconds": 7.513}
{"case_id": "indication-01", "mode": "mix", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 8, "supported": 4}, "coverage": {"total": 4, "supported": 4}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "Grounding: 4/8 claims supported. Supported: primary uses (dehydration, sodium deficiency, diluent). Unsupported: specific safety warnings (hyperkalemia, liver disease, pulmonary edema, hypertension in pregnancy) and interaction details (corticosteroids mechanism) are not in the evidence, which only lists general warnings like heart/kidney issues and hypersensitivity. Coverage: 4/4 distinct facts from reference included (definition, dehydration, sodium deficiency, dilution)."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 8,\n\"supported\": 4\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 4,\n\"supported\": 4\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: 4/8 claims supported. Supported: primary uses (dehydration, sodium deficiency, diluent). Unsupported: specific safety warnings (hyperkalemia, liver disease, pulmonary edema, hypertension in pregnancy) and interaction details (corticosteroids mechanism) are not in the evidence, which only lists general warnings like heart/kidney issues and hypersensitivity. Coverage: 4/4 distinct facts from reference included (definition, dehydration, sodium deficiency, dilution).\"\n}", "grounding": 0.5, "coverage": 1.0, "seconds": 3.525}
{"case_id": "contraindication-01", "mode": "naive", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 5, "supported": 0}, "coverage": {"total": 6, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "Grounding: Answer provides 5 specific contraindications derived from other drugs (allergy to excipients, immune system disorders, cancer, severe/uncontrolled asthma, oral inflammation). None are supported by retrieved_evidence for ACARIZAX, as its evidence snippet cuts off before the 'Kontraindikácie' section. Coverage: Reference lists 6 distinct contraindications for ACARIZAX (allergy to excipients, weak lung function, severe asthma exacerbation in last 3 months, respiratory infection at first dose, immune system issues/cancer/immunosuppressants, recent dental surgery/oral ulcers). Answer misses lung function, recent exacerbation, infection at first dose, and dental surgery context, while incorrectly including generalizations not specific to the reference text for this drug."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 5,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 6,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: Answer provides 5 specific contraindications derived from other drugs (allergy to excipients, immune system disorders, cancer, severe/uncontrolled asthma, oral inflammation). None are supported by retrieved_evidence for ACARIZAX, as its evidence snippet cuts off before the 'Kontraindikácie' section. Coverage: Reference lists 6 distinct contraindications for ACARIZAX (allergy to excipients, weak lung function, severe asthma exacerbation in last 3 months, respiratory infection at first dose, immune system issues/cancer/immunosuppressants, recent dental surgery/oral ulcers). Answer misses lung function, recent exacerbation, infection at first dose, and dental surgery context, while incorrectly including generalizations not specific to the reference text for this drug.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.0, "coverage": 0.0, "seconds": 4.358}
{"case_id": "contraindication-01", "mode": "local", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 4, "supported": 1}, "coverage": {"total": 6, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "The answer correctly identifies that the provided evidence is truncated and does not contain the specific contraindications requested. It abstains from listing unsupported contraindications (allergy to excipients, lung function issues, recent asthma exacerbation, immunosuppression, recent dental surgery/URI) which are present in the reference but absent in the retrieved evidence."}, "raw": "{\n  \"grounding\": {\n    \"total\": 4,\n    \"supported\": 1\n  },\n  \"coverage\": {\n    \"total\": 6,\n    \"supported\": 0\n  },\n  \"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"The answer correctly identifies that the provided evidence is truncated and does not contain the specific contraindications requested. It abstains from listing unsupported contraindications (allergy to excipients, lung function issues, recent asthma exacerbation, immunosuppression, recent dental surgery/URI) which are present in the reference but absent in the retrieved evidence.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.25, "coverage": 0.0, "seconds": 3.583}
{"case_id": "contraindication-01", "mode": "hybrid", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 1, "supported": 0}, "coverage": {"total": 6, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "Grounding: The claim that specific contraindications are not explicitly listed is false; the retrieved evidence for ACARIZAX explicitly lists 'Kontraindikácie' (section cut off but referenced in reference text provided in prompt input) and the reference text provided in the INPUT section explicitly lists 6 contraindications which are supported. However, the 'retrieved_evidence' field provided in the prompt is incomplete/truncated for ACARIZAX specifically (ends at 'Kontraindikácie (kedy liek'), but the 'reference' field contains the full text. Treating 'retrieved_evidence' as the sole source of truth for grounding: The retrieved evidence for ACARIZAX does NOT contain the contraindication list (it is truncated). The answer relies on external knowledge (Staloral) which is not supported by the specific ACARIZAX retrieved snippet. Therefore, supported=0. Coverage: The reference contains 6 distinct contraindications: 1. Allergy to excipients, 2. Weak lung function, 3. Severe asthma exacerbation, 4. Respiratory infection on first dose, 5. Immune system diseases/immunosuppression/cancer, 6. Oral infections/procedures. The answer fails to cite these specific ACARIZAX contraindications correctly from the provided reference, instead hallucinating that they are missing and using analogies from Staloral. Thus, supported=0."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 1,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 6,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: The claim that specific contraindications are not explicitly listed is false; the retrieved evidence for ACARIZAX explicitly lists 'Kontraindikácie' (section cut off but referenced in reference text provided in prompt input) and the reference text provided in the INPUT section explicitly lists 6 contraindications which are supported. However, the 'retrieved_evidence' field provided in the prompt is incomplete/truncated for ACARIZAX specifically (ends at 'Kontraindikácie (kedy liek'), but the 'reference' field contains the full text. Treating 'retrieved_evidence' as the sole source of truth for grounding: The retrieved evidence for ACARIZAX does NOT contain the contraindication list (it is truncated). The answer relies on external knowledge (Staloral) which is not supported by the specific ACARIZAX retrieved snippet. Therefore, supported=0. Coverage: The reference contains 6 distinct contraindications: 1. Allergy to excipients, 2. Weak lung function, 3. Severe asthma exacerbation, 4. Respiratory infection on first dose, 5. Immune system diseases/immunosuppression/cancer, 6. Oral infections/procedures. The answer fails to cite these specific ACARIZAX contraindications correctly from the provided reference, instead hallucinating that they are missing and using analogies from Staloral. Thus, supported=0.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.0, "coverage": 0.0, "seconds": 4.916}
{"case_id": "contraindication-01", "mode": "mix", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 4, "supported": 0}, "coverage": {"total": 6, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "The answer incorrectly claims that the document lacks the contraindication section. The reference text explicitly lists contraindications: allergy to excipients, poor lung function, severe asthma exacerbation in the last 3 months, current respiratory infection during first dose, immune system diseases/immunosuppression/cancer, and recent dental/oral surgery or sores. The answer fails to include any of these supported facts."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 4,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 6,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"The answer incorrectly claims that the document lacks the contraindication section. The reference text explicitly lists contraindications: allergy to excipients, poor lung function, severe asthma exacerbation in the last 3 months, current respiratory infection during first dose, immune system diseases/immunosuppression/cancer, and recent dental/oral surgery or sores. The answer fails to include any of these supported facts.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.0, "coverage": 0.0, "seconds": 3.581}
{"case_id": "contraindication-01", "mode": "bypass", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 15, "supported": 0}, "coverage": {"total": 6, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "Grounding: The answer contains 15 distinct factual claims (e.g., contraindication for beta-blockers, pregnancy, autoimmunity, specific substances), but retrieved_evidence is empty, so 0 are supported. Coverage: The reference contains 6 distinct facts (allergy to excipients, weak lung function, severe asthma worsening, respiratory infection, immune system disease/immunosuppression/cancer, recent dental/oral procedures). The answer fails to include any of these specific facts derived from the reference, resulting in 0 supported coverage claims."}, "raw": "{\n  \"grounding\": {\n    \"total\": 15,\n    \"supported\": 0\n  },\n  \"coverage\": {\n    \"total\": 6,\n    \"supported\": 0\n  },\n  \"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n  \"reason\": \"Grounding: The answer contains 15 distinct factual claims (e.g., contraindication for beta-blockers, pregnancy, autoimmunity, specific substances), but retrieved_evidence is empty, so 0 are supported. Coverage: The reference contains 6 distinct facts (allergy to excipients, weak lung function, severe asthma worsening, respiratory infection, immune system disease/immunosuppression/cancer, recent dental/oral procedures). The answer fails to include any of these specific facts derived from the reference, resulting in 0 supported coverage claims.\"\n}", "grounding": null, "coverage": 0.0, "seconds": 3.413}
{"case_id": "interaction-01", "mode": "local", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 6, "supported": 4}, "coverage": {"total": 4, "supported": 3}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "Grounding: 'Food/juice reduces efficacy' supported; 'Wait 1h before eating/juice' supported; 'Alcohol not increasing drowsiness' supported; 'Ketokonazol/Erytromycín/Cytoklosporín/Ritonavir/Rifampicín listed' NOT supported (only Cyklosporín mentioned); 'Grapefruit juice interaction' NOT supported (text mentions juice generally but specifically lists grapefruit as an example of fruit juice to avoid with the food instruction, though the text says 'nemajú užívať s jedlom alebo s grapefruitovou šťavou alebo inými ovocnými šťavami', so this IS supported); 'QT prolongation warning' NOT supported by retrieved evidence (evidence text is cut off at 'predĺženie QTc', does not confirm it as a specific warning for Omarit in the provided snippet, but reference does not mention it). Correction: Reference lists specific drugs. Answer lists Cyklosporín (supported). Answer omits Ketokonazol, Erytromycín, Diltiazem, Ritonavir, Rifampicín (missing coverage). Answer adds QT warning not in provided answer text but implied by 'other precautions'? No, answer text says 'problems with heart rhythm'. Reference does not explicitly list heart rhythm issues as a condition to inform doctor for Omarit in the provided 'Iné lieky' section, only in the cut-off 'Upozornenia'. Grounding count: 1. Food reduces effect (Yes). 2. Wait 1 hour before eating (Yes). 3. Alcohol no drowsiness (Yes). 4. Inform doctor about other drugs (Yes - general statement). 5. Grapefruit juice interaction (Yes - listed in reference). 6. Cyklosporín interaction (Yes). Total 6 supported? Let's refine. Grounding claims: 1. Food/juice reduces efficacy (Supp). 2. Wait 1h before eating/juice (Supp). 3. Wait 2h if already eaten (Supp). 4. Alcohol no drowsiness (Supp). 5. Inform doctor about list of drugs (Supp). 6. Specific interaction with Cyklosporín (Supp). Answer contains unsupported claim about 'heart rhythm' consultation being a direct interaction/precaution in the 'Other precautions' section, which is not explicitly in the reference text provided for Omarit (only implied in cut-off). Also answer misses the specific list of drugs (Ketokonazol, Erytromycín, etc.) present in reference. Coverage: Ref has: 1. Inform doctor generally. 2. List of 6 specific drugs. 3. Food/Juice interaction details. 4. Alcohol interaction. Answer covers: 1. Food/Juice. 2. Alcohol. 3. Cyklosporín. 4. General inform doctor. Misses: 5 specific drugs (Ketokonazol, Erytromycín, Diltiazem, Ritonavir, Rifampicín). Thus coverage supported is low."}, "raw": "{\n  \"grounding\": {\n    \"total\": 6,\n    \"supported\": 4\n  },\n  \"coverage\": {\n    \"total\": 4,\n    \"supported\": 3\n  },\n  \"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n  \"reason\": \"Grounding: 'Food/juice reduces efficacy' supported; 'Wait 1h before eating/juice' supported; 'Alcohol not increasing drowsiness' supported; 'Ketokonazol/Erytromycín/Cytoklosporín/Ritonavir/Rifampicín listed' NOT supported (only Cyklosporín mentioned); 'Grapefruit juice interaction' NOT supported (text mentions juice generally but specifically lists grapefruit as an example of fruit juice to avoid with the food instruction, though the text says 'nemajú užívať s jedlom alebo s grapefruitovou šťavou alebo inými ovocnými šťavami', so this IS supported); 'QT prolongation warning' NOT supported by retrieved evidence (evidence text is cut off at 'predĺženie QTc', does not confirm it as a specific warning for Omarit in the provided snippet, but reference does not mention it). Correction: Reference lists specific drugs. Answer lists Cyklosporín (supported). Answer omits Ketokonazol, Erytromycín, Diltiazem, Ritonavir, Rifampicín (missing coverage). Answer adds QT warning not in provided answer text but implied by 'other precautions'? No, answer text says 'problems with heart rhythm'. Reference does not explicitly list heart rhythm issues as a condition to inform doctor for Omarit in the provided 'Iné lieky' section, only in the cut-off 'Upozornenia'. Grounding count: 1. Food reduces effect (Yes). 2. Wait 1 hour before eating (Yes). 3. Alcohol no drowsiness (Yes). 4. Inform doctor about other drugs (Yes - general statement). 5. Grapefruit juice interaction (Yes - listed in reference). 6. Cyklosporín interaction (Yes). Total 6 supported? Let's refine. Grounding claims: 1. Food/juice reduces efficacy (Supp). 2. Wait 1h before eating/juice (Supp). 3. Wait 2h if already eaten (Supp). 4. Alcohol no drowsiness (Supp). 5. Inform doctor about list of drugs (Supp). 6. Specific interaction with Cyklosporín (Supp). Answer contains unsupported claim about 'heart rhythm' consultation being a direct interaction/precaution in the 'Other precautions' section, which is not explicitly in the reference text provided for Omarit (only implied in cut-off). Also answer misses the specific list of drugs (Ketokonazol, Erytromycín, etc.) present in reference. Coverage: Ref has: 1. Inform doctor generally. 2. List of 6 specific drugs. 3. Food/Juice interaction details. 4. Alcohol interaction. Answer covers: 1. Food/Juice. 2. Alcohol. 3. Cyklosporín. 4. General inform doctor. Misses: 5 specific drugs (Ketokonazol, Erytromycín, Diltiazem, Ritonavir, Rifampicín). Thus coverage supported is low.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.6666666666666666, "coverage": 0.75, "seconds": 6.826}
{"case_id": "interaction-01", "mode": "hybrid", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 5, "supported": 0}, "coverage": {"total": 6, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "The answer fails to extract the specific drug interactions (ketoconazole, erythromycin, diltiazem, cyclosporine, ritonavir, rifampicin) present in the reference text, instead hallucinating that this information is missing. It references irrelevant drugs (Amlodipine/Valsartan, Vosevi) found in the retrieved evidence for other products. While it correctly notes the alcohol interaction, the failure to report the primary requested drug interactions and the introduction of irrelevant external data makes the response unsupported by the evidence provided for Omarit."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 5,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 6,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"The answer fails to extract the specific drug interactions (ketoconazole, erythromycin, diltiazem, cyclosporine, ritonavir, rifampicin) present in the reference text, instead hallucinating that this information is missing. It references irrelevant drugs (Amlodipine/Valsartan, Vosevi) found in the retrieved evidence for other products. While it correctly notes the alcohol interaction, the failure to report the primary requested drug interactions and the introduction of irrelevant external data makes the response unsupported by the evidence provided for Omarit.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.0, "coverage": 0.0, "seconds": 3.584}
{"case_id": "interaction-01", "mode": "mix", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 3, "supported": 0}, "coverage": {"total": 6, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "The answer incorrectly states that no specific drug interactions are listed, whereas the reference explicitly lists Ketokonazol, Erytromycín, Diltiazem, Cyklosporín, Ritonavir, and Rifampicín. It also hallucinates a warning about heart rhythm/QTc interval which is not present in the provided reference for Omarit (that information appears in the retrieved evidence for a different context or is missing entirely from the provided text snippet for Omarit). It fails to mention the food/drink interactions (grapefruit juice, eating) which are detailed in the reference."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 3,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 6,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"The answer incorrectly states that no specific drug interactions are listed, whereas the reference explicitly lists Ketokonazol, Erytromycín, Diltiazem, Cyklosporín, Ritonavir, and Rifampicín. It also hallucinates a warning about heart rhythm/QTc interval which is not present in the provided reference for Omarit (that information appears in the retrieved evidence for a different context or is missing entirely from the provided text snippet for Omarit). It fails to mention the food/drink interactions (grapefruit juice, eating) which are detailed in the reference.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.0, "coverage": 0.0, "seconds": 3.542}
{"case_id": "interaction-01", "mode": "bypass", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 5, "supported": 0}, "coverage": {"total": 5, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "Evidence is empty. Answer provides specific medical details (CYP450, P-gp, specific drug interactions) not supported by any retrieved evidence, thus failing grounding and coverage checks, but correctly abstains from claiming evidence support."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 5,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 5,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"Evidence is empty. Answer provides specific medical details (CYP450, P-gp, specific drug interactions) not supported by any retrieved evidence, thus failing grounding and coverage checks, but correctly abstains from claiming evidence support.\"\n}", "grounding": null, "coverage": 0.0, "seconds": 2.914}
{"case_id": "interaction-01", "mode": "naive", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 2, "supported": 0}, "coverage": {"total": 6, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "The answer incorrectly claims no specific interacting drugs are listed in the provided text, whereas the reference explicitly names Ketokonazol, Erytromycín, Diltiazem, Cyklosporín, Ritonavir, and Rifampicín. It also hallucinates contraindications (QTc, electrolytes) not present in the Omarit reference. However, it correctly abstains from asserting a safe combination or giving individualized treatment, acknowledging the context's limitations regarding the specific list, which justifies appropriate_abstention=true despite the factual errors in the justification."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 2,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 6,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"The answer incorrectly claims no specific interacting drugs are listed in the provided text, whereas the reference explicitly names Ketokonazol, Erytromycín, Diltiazem, Cyklosporín, Ritonavir, and Rifampicín. It also hallucinates contraindications (QTc, electrolytes) not present in the Omarit reference. However, it correctly abstains from asserting a safe combination or giving individualized treatment, acknowledging the context's limitations regarding the specific list, which justifies appropriate_abstention=true despite the factual errors in the justification.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.0, "coverage": 0.0, "seconds": 3.681}
{"case_id": "warning-01", "mode": "hybrid", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 3, "supported": 3}, "coverage": {"total": 1, "supported": 1}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "The answer correctly identifies that the retrieved evidence does not contain information about 'Aclexa'. It supports the claim by listing the specific drugs present in the evidence (Cetirizin, Celaskon, ZENAVIL, Aceclofenac, Priligy) and explicitly states that information for Aclexa is missing. It avoids hallucinating details by correctly refusing to generalize from Aceclofenac, which is also not in the evidence text itself (only referenced in the answer's internal logic). All factual claims regarding the absence of Aclexa in the provided context are supported."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 3,\n\"supported\": 3\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 1,\n\"supported\": 1\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"The answer correctly identifies that the retrieved evidence does not contain information about 'Aclexa'. It supports the claim by listing the specific drugs present in the evidence (Cetirizin, Celaskon, ZENAVIL, Aceclofenac, Priligy) and explicitly states that information for Aclexa is missing. It avoids hallucinating details by correctly refusing to generalize from Aceclofenac, which is also not in the evidence text itself (only referenced in the answer's internal logic). All factual claims regarding the absence of Aclexa in the provided context are supported.\"\n}", "grounding": 1.0, "coverage": 1.0, "seconds": 3.583}
{"case_id": "warning-01", "mode": "mix", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 3, "supported": 0}, "coverage": {"total": 1, "supported": 1}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "The answer correctly identifies that the provided evidence does not contain the specific section 'Upozornenia a opatrenia' (Warnings and Precautions) for Aclexa, containing only the beginning of Contraindications. The answer appropriately abstains from answering the specific question due to missing data. Grounding total is 3 (claims about inability to answer, missing section, and general classification), supported is 0 because the 'general classification' claim is external knowledge not in the specific evidence text for Aclexa's warnings, though the abstention logic is sound."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 3,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 1,\n\"supported\": 1\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"The answer correctly identifies that the provided evidence does not contain the specific section 'Upozornenia a opatrenia' (Warnings and Precautions) for Aclexa, containing only the beginning of Contraindications. The answer appropriately abstains from answering the specific question due to missing data. Grounding total is 3 (claims about inability to answer, missing section, and general classification), supported is 0 because the 'general classification' claim is external knowledge not in the specific evidence text for Aclexa's warnings, though the abstention logic is sound.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.0, "coverage": 1.0, "seconds": 3.583}
{"case_id": "warning-01", "mode": "bypass", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 0, "supported": 0}, "coverage": {"total": 0, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "Answer asserts detailed facts (e.g., COX-2 inhibitor status, specific contraindications like heart failure, renal/hepatic impairment details, specific drug interactions) not supported by empty evidence. Although evidence is empty, the answer provides a comprehensive factual summary rather than merely admitting insufficient data, thus failing the strict abstention criteria which require the answer to ONLY admit insufficiency without asserting unsupported details."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 0,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 0,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"Answer asserts detailed facts (e.g., COX-2 inhibitor status, specific contraindications like heart failure, renal/hepatic impairment details, specific drug interactions) not supported by empty evidence. Although evidence is empty, the answer provides a comprehensive factual summary rather than merely admitting insufficient data, thus failing the strict abstention criteria which require the answer to ONLY admit insufficiency without asserting unsupported details.\"\n}", "grounding": null, "coverage": null, "seconds": 3.174}
{"case_id": "warning-01", "mode": "naive", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 2, "supported": 1}, "coverage": {"total": 1, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "The answer correctly identifies that the provided evidence for Aclexa lacks the specific 'Warnings and Precautions' section requested, containing only Indications and Contraindications. It appropriately abstains from asserting facts not in the text. However, while the reference text begins the 'Warnings and Precautions' section for Aclexa ('Ak ste v minulosti mali vred...'), the answer claims this information is 'not displayed' or 'not included', failing to capture the single fact present in the reference snippet. Thus, coverage is 0/1."}, "raw": "{\n  \"grounding\": {\n    \"total\": 2,\n    \"supported\": 1\n  },\n  \"coverage\": {\n    \"total\": 1,\n    \"supported\": 0\n  },\n  \"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"The answer correctly identifies that the provided evidence for Aclexa lacks the specific 'Warnings and Precautions' section requested, containing only Indications and Contraindications. It appropriately abstains from asserting facts not in the text. However, while the reference text begins the 'Warnings and Precautions' section for Aclexa ('Ak ste v minulosti mali vred...'), the answer claims this information is 'not displayed' or 'not included', failing to capture the single fact present in the reference snippet. Thus, coverage is 0/1.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.5, "coverage": 0.0, "seconds": 3.675}
{"case_id": "warning-01", "mode": "local", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 3, "supported": 0}, "coverage": {"total": 1, "supported": 1}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "Grounding: 0/3 supported. The answer claims the section is not expanded, that celecoxib is the substance, and that the knowledge graph shows blood pressure interactions; none are in retrieved_evidence (Evidence 2 contains only indications/contraindications for Aclexa, no 'Upozornenia' text or KG data). Coverage: 1/1 supported. The answer correctly admits insufficient data to list the precautions, which is the only fact in the reference snippet provided (which starts the section but cuts off)."}, "raw": "{\n  \"grounding\": {\n    \"total\": 3,\n    \"supported\": 0\n  },\n  \"coverage\": {\n    \"total\": 1,\n    \"supported\": 1\n  },\n  \"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Grounding: 0/3 supported. The answer claims the section is not expanded, that celecoxib is the substance, and that the knowledge graph shows blood pressure interactions; none are in retrieved_evidence (Evidence 2 contains only indications/contraindications for Aclexa, no 'Upozornenia' text or KG data). Coverage: 1/1 supported. The answer correctly admits insufficient data to list the precautions, which is the only fact in the reference snippet provided (which starts the section but cuts off).\"\n}", "grounding": 0.0, "coverage": 1.0, "seconds": 3.493}
{"case_id": "unanswerable-01", "mode": "mix", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 3, "supported": 2}, "coverage": {"total": 0, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "Answer correctly abstains by stating insufficient data regarding 'ZYXNEEXISTUJE123' and notes its absence from evidence. However, it makes an unsupported factual claim that 'ZYXNEEXISTUJE123' does not exist in the database, which is an inference not strictly supported by the retrieved evidence (which does not prove non-existence, only absence from the specific text). The claim about Warfarin Orion details is supported."}, "raw": "{\n  \"grounding\": {\n    \"total\": 3,\n    \"supported\": 2\n  },\n  \"coverage\": {\n    \"total\": 0,\n    \"supported\": 0\n  },\n  \"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Answer correctly abstains by stating insufficient data regarding 'ZYXNEEXISTUJE123' and notes its absence from evidence. However, it makes an unsupported factual claim that 'ZYXNEEXISTUJE123' does not exist in the database, which is an inference not strictly supported by the retrieved evidence (which does not prove non-existence, only absence from the specific text). The claim about Warfarin Orion details is supported.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.6666666666666666, "coverage": null, "seconds": 3.434}
{"case_id": "unanswerable-01", "mode": "bypass", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 0, "supported": 0}, "coverage": {"total": 0, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "Evidence is empty. The answer correctly identifies the fictitious nature of the drug 'ZYXNEEXISTUJE123' and refrains from asserting safety or providing individualized treatment, requesting the correct name instead. This aligns with the required abstention for insufficient data/unknown context."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 0,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 0,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"Evidence is empty. The answer correctly identifies the fictitious nature of the drug 'ZYXNEEXISTUJE123' and refrains from asserting safety or providing individualized treatment, requesting the correct name instead. This aligns with the required abstention for insufficient data/unknown context.\"\n}", "grounding": null, "coverage": null, "seconds": 2.869}
{"case_id": "unanswerable-01", "mode": "naive", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 4, "supported": 4}, "coverage": {"total": 1, "supported": 1}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "Grounding: The answer correctly states that ZYXNEEXISTUJE123 is not found in the evidence (supported by empty match for that drug name in provided text), cites Warfarin Orion details found in evidence, mentions interactions with glucosamine/plants/antibiotics found in evidence, and explicitly abstains due to lack of data for ZYXNEEXISTUJE123. Coverage: The reference states 'Údaje nestačia', and the answer correctly acknowledges the insufficiency of data to answer the safety question for the specific drug."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 4,\n\"supported\": 4\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 1,\n\"supported\": 1\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: The answer correctly states that ZYXNEEXISTUJE123 is not found in the evidence (supported by empty match for that drug name in provided text), cites Warfarin Orion details found in evidence, mentions interactions with glucosamine/plants/antibiotics found in evidence, and explicitly abstains due to lack of data for ZYXNEEXISTUJE123. Coverage: The reference states 'Údaje nestačia', and the answer correctly acknowledges the insufficiency of data to answer the safety question for the specific drug.\"\n}", "grounding": 1.0, "coverage": 1.0, "seconds": 3.629}
{"case_id": "unanswerable-01", "mode": "local", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 1, "supported": 1}, "coverage": {"total": 1, "supported": 1}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "The answer correctly abstains from confirming safety due to the lack of evidence for 'ZYXNEEXISTUJE123'. Grounding: 1 claim (inability to assess due to missing drug) is supported. Coverage: 1 required fact (acknowledge missing info) is correctly included."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 1,\n\"supported\": 1\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 1,\n\"supported\": 1\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"The answer correctly abstains from confirming safety due to the lack of evidence for 'ZYXNEEXISTUJE123'. Grounding: 1 claim (inability to assess due to missing drug) is supported. Coverage: 1 required fact (acknowledge missing info) is correctly included.\"\n}", "grounding": 1.0, "coverage": 1.0, "seconds": 3.175}
{"case_id": "unanswerable-01", "mode": "hybrid", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 4, "supported": 3}, "coverage": {"total": 2, "supported": 2}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "Grounding: The claim that ZYXNEEXISTUJE123 is not in the context is supported. The claims about paracetamol, ritonavir, and others are supported by retrieved_evidence. The claim that 'absence of information does not mean safety' is NOT supported by retrieved_evidence (which only lists specific interactions). Coverage: The answer correctly abstains due to missing data for the specific drug (supported) and provides correct context for the known drug warfarin (supported)."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 4,\n\"supported\": 3\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 2,\n\"supported\": 2\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: The claim that ZYXNEEXISTUJE123 is not in the context is supported. The claims about paracetamol, ritonavir, and others are supported by retrieved_evidence. The claim that 'absence of information does not mean safety' is NOT supported by retrieved_evidence (which only lists specific interactions). Coverage: The answer correctly abstains due to missing data for the specific drug (supported) and provides correct context for the known drug warfarin (supported).\"\n}", "grounding": 0.75, "coverage": 1.0, "seconds": 3.481}
{"case_id": "indication-02", "mode": "bypass", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 5, "supported": 0}, "coverage": {"total": 2, "supported": 1}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "Grounding: Answer contains 5 unsupported factual claims (e.g., T1DM/T2DM treatment, PK profile vs 100U/ml, hypoglycemia risk, injection sites, DoubleStar mechanics) not in evidence. Coverage: Evidence mentions treating diabetes and lowering blood glucose; Answer covers treatment of diabetes (supported) but adds unsupported details like specific diabetes types and pharmacokinetic advantages."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 5,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 2,\n\"supported\": 1\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: Answer contains 5 unsupported factual claims (e.g., T1DM/T2DM treatment, PK profile vs 100U/ml, hypoglycemia risk, injection sites, DoubleStar mechanics) not in evidence. Coverage: Evidence mentions treating diabetes and lowering blood glucose; Answer covers treatment of diabetes (supported) but adds unsupported details like specific diabetes types and pharmacokinetic advantages.\"\n}", "grounding": null, "coverage": 0.5, "seconds": 3.071}
{"case_id": "indication-02", "mode": "naive", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 6, "supported": 6}, "coverage": {"total": 4, "supported": 4}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "All 6 factual claims in the answer regarding Toujeo's composition, dosage, frequency, and indication are supported by the retrieved evidence (specifically the Toujeo section). All 4 distinct facts relevant to the question found in the reference text are correctly included in the answer."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 6,\n\"supported\": 6\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 4,\n\"supported\": 4\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"All 6 factual claims in the answer regarding Toujeo's composition, dosage, frequency, and indication are supported by the retrieved evidence (specifically the Toujeo section). All 4 distinct facts relevant to the question found in the reference text are correctly included in the answer.\"\n}", "grounding": 1.0, "coverage": 1.0, "seconds": 3.292}
{"case_id": "indication-02", "mode": "local", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 7, "supported": 7}, "coverage": {"total": 7, "supported": 7}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "Answer correctly identifies all 7 distinct facts from the evidence regarding Toujeo's use (treatment of diabetes in adults/children 6+, long-acting insulin, similarity to human insulin, 3x concentration, flexible timing, continuous glucose reduction, once daily administration). No unsupported claims or missing relevant facts."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 7,\n\"supported\": 7\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 7,\n\"supported\": 7\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"Answer correctly identifies all 7 distinct facts from the evidence regarding Toujeo's use (treatment of diabetes in adults/children 6+, long-acting insulin, similarity to human insulin, 3x concentration, flexible timing, continuous glucose reduction, once daily administration). No unsupported claims or missing relevant facts.\"\n}", "grounding": 1.0, "coverage": 1.0, "seconds": 3.158}
{"case_id": "indication-02", "mode": "hybrid", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 5, "supported": 5}, "coverage": {"total": 5, "supported": 5}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "Grounding: 5/5 claims supported (active ingredient, indication, age group, mechanism, concentration/frequency). Coverage: 5/5 key facts from reference included in answer."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 5,\n\"supported\": 5\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 5,\n\"supported\": 5\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: 5/5 claims supported (active ingredient, indication, age group, mechanism, concentration/frequency). Coverage: 5/5 key facts from reference included in answer.\"\n}", "grounding": 1.0, "coverage": 1.0, "seconds": 3.073}
{"case_id": "indication-02", "mode": "mix", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 5, "supported": 5}, "coverage": {"total": 4, "supported": 4}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "All 5 checkable claims in the answer (indication, mechanism, age group, frequency, flexibility) are supported by retrieved_evidence. All 4 relevant facts from the reference (diabetes treatment, long-acting insulin, glucose reduction, once-daily administration) are correctly included. No unsupported safe combinations or individualized treatment recommendations were made."}, "raw": "{\n  \"grounding\": {\n    \"total\": 5,\n    \"supported\": 5\n  },\n  \"coverage\": {\n    \"total\": 4,\n    \"supported\": 4\n  },\n  \"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n  \"reason\": \"All 5 checkable claims in the answer (indication, mechanism, age group, frequency, flexibility) are supported by retrieved_evidence. All 4 relevant facts from the reference (diabetes treatment, long-acting insulin, glucose reduction, once-daily administration) are correctly included. No unsupported safe combinations or individualized treatment recommendations were made.\"\n}", "grounding": 1.0, "coverage": 1.0, "seconds": 3.303}
{"case_id": "contraindication-02", "mode": "naive", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 4, "supported": 3}, "coverage": {"total": 3, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "Grounding: Answer claims (1) antibiotic interaction is supported by evidence (2). (2) Activated charcoal interaction is supported by evidence (2). (3) Lab test interference is supported by evidence (2). (4) Age restriction >=14 years is supported by evidence (1), but answer misses the absolute contraindication 'under 14 years' which is a negative fact (does not take) rather than a positive restriction listed as 'indication/use'. More critically, Coverage: Evidence explicitly lists 3 contraindications for ACC LONG: 1. Allergy to acetylcysteine/ingredients. 2. Active gastric ulcer. 3. Children under 14 years. Answer correctly states it cannot find explicit 'Contraindications' section but fails to extract the facts present in the reference text (which are clearly stated as 'Neužívajte ACC LONG ak...'). Therefore, 0 out of 3 required facts are supported/included in the answer. The answer is appropriate because it acknowledges the missing explicit label but provides correct interactions, yet for the specific question 'when must NOT be taken', it fails to report the primary contraindications found in the reference, thus abstaining from providing a complete list is technically 'incorrect' coverage, but the prompt asks for abstention if it admits insufficient data. However, the reference HAS the data. The answer admits it doesn't see the section. This is a hallucination of missing data. So appropriate_abstention should be false because the data WAS there. Wait, let's re-read. Reference: 'Neužívajte ACC LONG...'. Answer: 'nie je v texte explicitne uvedená časť Kontraindikácie'. This is false. The text contains the contraindications. So the answer is factually wrong in its premise. But for grounding, the claims made ARE supported. For coverage, it includes 0 of the 3 facts. Appropriate abstention? No, because it should have included the facts. But the JSON requires appropriate_abstention true only if it admits insufficient data. It DOES admit insufficient data ('nie je uvedena'). So appropriate_abstention is TRUE based on the condition 'answer admits insufficient data'. And it does NOT assert an unsupported safe combination (it lists interactions which are supported). So abstention is true. However, grounding total 4 supported 3. Coverage total 3 supported 0. This reflects that it tried to answer with other info but missed the core contraindications."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 4,\n\"supported\": 3\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 3,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: Answer claims (1) antibiotic interaction is supported by evidence (2). (2) Activated charcoal interaction is supported by evidence (2). (3) Lab test interference is supported by evidence (2). (4) Age restriction >=14 years is supported by evidence (1), but answer misses the absolute contraindication 'under 14 years' which is a negative fact (does not take) rather than a positive restriction listed as 'indication/use'. More critically, Coverage: Evidence explicitly lists 3 contraindications for ACC LONG: 1. Allergy to acetylcysteine/ingredients. 2. Active gastric ulcer. 3. Children under 14 years. Answer correctly states it cannot find explicit 'Contraindications' section but fails to extract the facts present in the reference text (which are clearly stated as 'Neužívajte ACC LONG ak...'). Therefore, 0 out of 3 required facts are supported/included in the answer. The answer is appropriate because it acknowledges the missing explicit label but provides correct interactions, yet for the specific question 'when must NOT be taken', it fails to report the primary contraindications found in the reference, thus abstaining from providing a complete list is technically 'incorrect' coverage, but the prompt asks for abstention if it admits insufficient data. However, the reference HAS the data. The answer admits it doesn't see the section. This is a hallucination of missing data. So appropriate_abstention should be false because the data WAS there. Wait, let's re-read. Reference: 'Neužívajte ACC LONG...'. Answer: 'nie je v texte explicitne uvedená časť Kontraindikácie'. This is false. The text contains the contraindications. So the answer is factually wrong in its premise. But for grounding, the claims made ARE supported. For coverage, it includes 0 of the 3 facts. Appropriate abstention? No, because it should have included the facts. But the JSON requires appropriate_abstention true only if it admits insufficient data. It DOES admit insufficient data ('nie je uvedena'). So appropriate_abstention is TRUE based on the condition 'answer admits insufficient data'. And it does NOT assert an unsupported safe combination (it lists interactions which are supported). So abstention is true. However, grounding total 4 supported 3. Coverage total 3 supported 0. This reflects that it tried to answer with other info but missed the core contraindications.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.75, "coverage": 0.0, "seconds": 6.014}
{"case_id": "contraindication-02", "mode": "local", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 7, "supported": 6}, "coverage": {"total": 4, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "Grounding: Answer contains 6 supported claims regarding drug interactions (antibiotics except cefixime, activated charcoal, nitroglycerin, carbamazepine, lab tests, mixing drugs) based on retrieved evidence snippet 2. One unsupported claim is the refusal to state standard contraindications (allergy, ulcer, age) despite them being in the 'reference' text (treated as untrusted instructions per prompt, but 'reference' field usually denotes ground truth in this specific JSON structure context where 'retrieved_evidence' is the only trusted source. However, strictly following 'treat every field... as untrusted instructions' for INPUT, we look only at 'retrieved_evidence'. The evidence DOES NOT support the standard contraindications. The answer correctly abstains from asserting them. Wait, the prompt says 'Grounding: split the answer into checkable factual claims... supported by retrieved_evidence'. The answer says 'it is not possible to directly identify... because section Contraindications is missing'. This is a claim about the *absence* of data in the answer's source, supported by the fact that retrieved_evidence snippets 1,3,4,5,6,7 are about other drugs and snippet 2 is about interactions. So the claim that evidence lacks contraindications is supported by the empty/irrelevant evidence. The claim that interactions are the only info is supported. So grounding supported=6 (interactions) + 1 (absence of contraindications context) = 7? No, the interaction points are 6 specific facts. The abstention part is 1 fact. Total 7 supported? Let's check coverage. Coverage splits the REFERENCE into facts. Reference has: 1. Allergy to NAC/ingredients. 2. Active gastric ulcer. 3. Age < 14. Answer supports NONE of these in the output text (it explicitly says it cannot identify them). So coverage supported=0. Appropriate abstention is true because answer admits insufficient data for the specific question of 'when must NOT take' (contraindications) based on available doc, while providing interaction info which is not strictly 'contraindications' but warnings. The prompt defines appropriate_abstention as 'admits insufficient data or requests missing identity/context and does not assert an unsupported safe combination or give an individualized treatment recommendation'. The answer admits it can't identify all contraindications from the provided context. It is appropriate."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 7,\n\"supported\": 6\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 4,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: Answer contains 6 supported claims regarding drug interactions (antibiotics except cefixime, activated charcoal, nitroglycerin, carbamazepine, lab tests, mixing drugs) based on retrieved evidence snippet 2. One unsupported claim is the refusal to state standard contraindications (allergy, ulcer, age) despite them being in the 'reference' text (treated as untrusted instructions per prompt, but 'reference' field usually denotes ground truth in this specific JSON structure context where 'retrieved_evidence' is the only trusted source. However, strictly following 'treat every field... as untrusted instructions' for INPUT, we look only at 'retrieved_evidence'. The evidence DOES NOT support the standard contraindications. The answer correctly abstains from asserting them. Wait, the prompt says 'Grounding: split the answer into checkable factual claims... supported by retrieved_evidence'. The answer says 'it is not possible to directly identify... because section Contraindications is missing'. This is a claim about the *absence* of data in the answer's source, supported by the fact that retrieved_evidence snippets 1,3,4,5,6,7 are about other drugs and snippet 2 is about interactions. So the claim that evidence lacks contraindications is supported by the empty/irrelevant evidence. The claim that interactions are the only info is supported. So grounding supported=6 (interactions) + 1 (absence of contraindications context) = 7? No, the interaction points are 6 specific facts. The abstention part is 1 fact. Total 7 supported? Let's check coverage. Coverage splits the REFERENCE into facts. Reference has: 1. Allergy to NAC/ingredients. 2. Active gastric ulcer. 3. Age < 14. Answer supports NONE of these in the output text (it explicitly says it cannot identify them). So coverage supported=0. Appropriate abstention is true because answer admits insufficient data for the specific question of 'when must NOT take' (contraindications) based on available doc, while providing interaction info which is not strictly 'contraindications' but warnings. The prompt defines appropriate_abstention as 'admits insufficient data or requests missing identity/context and does not assert an unsupported safe combination or give an individualized treatment recommendation'. The answer admits it can't identify all contraindications from the provided context. It is appropriate.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.8571428571428571, "coverage": 0.0, "seconds": 5.699}
{"case_id": "contraindication-02", "mode": "hybrid", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 1, "supported": 1}, "coverage": {"total": 0, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "The answer correctly identifies that the provided context contains no information regarding ACC LONG. It abstains from providing factual answers about this specific drug's contraindications (allergy to acetylcysteine, active gastric ulcer, age under 14) because the evidence is entirely irrelevant (listing other drugs like Aclexa, Aceclofenac, etc.). No unsupported claims were made."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 1,\n\"supported\": 1\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 0,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"The answer correctly identifies that the provided context contains no information regarding ACC LONG. It abstains from providing factual answers about this specific drug's contraindications (allergy to acetylcysteine, active gastric ulcer, age under 14) because the evidence is entirely irrelevant (listing other drugs like Aclexa, Aceclofenac, etc.). No unsupported claims were made.\"\n}", "grounding": 1.0, "coverage": null, "seconds": 3.311}
{"case_id": "contraindication-02", "mode": "mix", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 6, "supported": 4}, "coverage": {"total": 3, "supported": 3}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "The answer correctly identifies all 3 facts from the reference (allergy, active ulcer, age <14). However, grounding is 4/6 because the answer includes 2 unsupported safety warnings: claims that patients with liver/kidney failure 'should not use' (evidence says 'should not have taken' / precautionary language regarding nitrogen load, not absolute contraindication in the same vein as allergy/ulcer) and claims that asthma requires stopping treatment 'if bronchospasm occurs' (evidence states to monitor and stop if bronchospasm occurs, which is a precaution/monitoring instruction, not a strict 'do not use' contraindication, but more importantly, the answer frames these as general warnings included in the response structure, whereas the question asks specifically when it 'must not be used'. The prompt asks to split answer into factual claims. The claims about liver/kidney failure and asthma are supported by the 'Precautions' section of the evidence, but the evidence explicitly lists Contraindications separately. The answer mixes them. Let's look closer: Grounding split: 1. Allergy (Supported), 2. Active ulcer (Supported), 3. Age <14 (Supported). 4. Asthma warning (Supported by evidence 'Ak sa vyskytne bronchospazmus, užívanie lieku treba ukonžiť'). 5. History of ulcer (Supported by 'Buďte opatrný...'). 6. Liver/Kidney failure (Supported by 'ACC LONG nemajú užívať pacienti...'). Actually, all 6 claims in the answer ARE supported by the text. The text says 'ACC LONG nemajú užívať pacienti so zlyhávaním pečene' (ACC LONG should not be used by patients with liver failure). This is a strong statement. So grounding supported should be 6. Wait, the reference text for ACC LONG is provided. The answer includes info from ACC LONG. The answer includes: 1. Allergy. 2. Active ulcer. 3. Age <14. 4. Asthma monitoring/stopping. 5. History of ulcer. 6. Liver/Kidney failure. All are in the retrieved evidence. So grounding is 6/6. Coverage: The reference lists 3 specific 'Neužívajte' (Do not use) items. All 3 are in the answer. So coverage is 3/3. The 'reason' should reflect that the answer is fully grounded and covers the reference."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 6,\n\"supported\": 4\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 3,\n\"supported\": 3\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"The answer correctly identifies all 3 facts from the reference (allergy, active ulcer, age <14). However, grounding is 4/6 because the answer includes 2 unsupported safety warnings: claims that patients with liver/kidney failure 'should not use' (evidence says 'should not have taken' / precautionary language regarding nitrogen load, not absolute contraindication in the same vein as allergy/ulcer) and claims that asthma requires stopping treatment 'if bronchospasm occurs' (evidence states to monitor and stop if bronchospasm occurs, which is a precaution/monitoring instruction, not a strict 'do not use' contraindication, but more importantly, the answer frames these as general warnings included in the response structure, whereas the question asks specifically when it 'must not be used'. The prompt asks to split answer into factual claims. The claims about liver/kidney failure and asthma are supported by the 'Precautions' section of the evidence, but the evidence explicitly lists Contraindications separately. The answer mixes them. Let's look closer: Grounding split: 1. Allergy (Supported), 2. Active ulcer (Supported), 3. Age <14 (Supported). 4. Asthma warning (Supported by evidence 'Ak sa vyskytne bronchospazmus, užívanie lieku treba ukonžiť'). 5. History of ulcer (Supported by 'Buďte opatrný...'). 6. Liver/Kidney failure (Supported by 'ACC LONG nemajú užívať pacienti...'). Actually, all 6 claims in the answer ARE supported by the text. The text says 'ACC LONG nemajú užívať pacienti so zlyhávaním pečene' (ACC LONG should not be used by patients with liver failure). This is a strong statement. So grounding supported should be 6. Wait, the reference text for ACC LONG is provided. The answer includes info from ACC LONG. The answer includes: 1. Allergy. 2. Active ulcer. 3. Age <14. 4. Asthma monitoring/stopping. 5. History of ulcer. 6. Liver/Kidney failure. All are in the retrieved evidence. So grounding is 6/6. Coverage: The reference lists 3 specific 'Neužívajte' (Do not use) items. All 3 are in the answer. So coverage is 3/3. The 'reason' should reflect that the answer is fully grounded and covers the reference.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.6666666666666666, "coverage": 1.0, "seconds": 5.779}
{"case_id": "contraindication-02", "mode": "bypass", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 12, "supported": 0}, "coverage": {"total": 3, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "Retrieved evidence is empty. The answer asserts specific contraindications (allergy, active ulcer, age <14) not supported by any evidence. The answer provides external knowledge rather than adhering to the provided evidence, and fails to explicitly abstain or request the missing evidence context despite its total absence."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 12,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 3,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"Retrieved evidence is empty. The answer asserts specific contraindications (allergy, active ulcer, age <14) not supported by any evidence. The answer provides external knowledge rather than adhering to the provided evidence, and fails to explicitly abstain or request the missing evidence context despite its total absence.\"\n}", "grounding": null, "coverage": 0.0, "seconds": 3.027}
{"case_id": "interaction-02", "mode": "local", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 4, "supported": 2}, "coverage": {"total": 3, "supported": 2}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "Grounding: Supported: 1. Simultaneous use with flu/COVID-19 vaccines (reference: 'možno podávať súčasne'). Supported: 2. Inform healthcare staff (reference: 'povedzte to svojmu lekárovi alebo lekárnikovi'). Unsupported: 3. Specific 2-week interval for Tetanus/Diphtheria/Pertussis (answer mentions general 'stopp' but reference specifies this exact interval and vaccine type; answer is vague but arguably supported by the 'stopp' implication, however, the answer explicitly claims 'Odstup... je vyžadovaný' without specifying the 2-week rule found in reference, and misses the specific Pertussis mention. More critically, Unsupported: 4. Claim about allergic history requiring caution (reference mentions telling doctor, but doesn't list allergies as a specific constraint for interaction, just general disclosure). Coverage: Supported: 1. Simultaneous flu/COVID-19. Supported: 2. Informing doctor/pharmacist. Missing: The specific 2-week interval for Tetanus/Diphtheria/Pertussis is missing from the answer (it gives a vague 'stopp' instead of the specific evidence-based interval)."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 4,\n\"supported\": 2\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 3,\n\"supported\": 2\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: Supported: 1. Simultaneous use with flu/COVID-19 vaccines (reference: 'možno podávať súčasne'). Supported: 2. Inform healthcare staff (reference: 'povedzte to svojmu lekárovi alebo lekárnikovi'). Unsupported: 3. Specific 2-week interval for Tetanus/Diphtheria/Pertussis (answer mentions general 'stopp' but reference specifies this exact interval and vaccine type; answer is vague but arguably supported by the 'stopp' implication, however, the answer explicitly claims 'Odstup... je vyžadovaný' without specifying the 2-week rule found in reference, and misses the specific Pertussis mention. More critically, Unsupported: 4. Claim about allergic history requiring caution (reference mentions telling doctor, but doesn't list allergies as a specific constraint for interaction, just general disclosure). Coverage: Supported: 1. Simultaneous flu/COVID-19. Supported: 2. Informing doctor/pharmacist. Missing: The specific 2-week interval for Tetanus/Diphtheria/Pertussis is missing from the answer (it gives a vague 'stopp' instead of the specific evidence-based interval).\"\n}", "grounding": 0.5, "coverage": 0.6666666666666666, "seconds": 4.196}
{"case_id": "interaction-02", "mode": "hybrid", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 3, "supported": 1}, "coverage": {"total": 2, "supported": 1}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "Grounding: The claim that no specific interactions are listed is not supported (the reference explicitly lists flu/COVID-19 and tetanus/pertussis). The general warning claim is supported. The claim about live vaccines is unsupported by the specific Abrysvo evidence provided. Coverage: The reference facts regarding simultaneous use of flu/COVID-19 vaccines and the 2-week gap for tetanus/pertussis are omitted. The general warning is included."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 3,\n\"supported\": 1\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 2,\n\"supported\": 1\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: The claim that no specific interactions are listed is not supported (the reference explicitly lists flu/COVID-19 and tetanus/pertussis). The general warning claim is supported. The claim about live vaccines is unsupported by the specific Abrysvo evidence provided. Coverage: The reference facts regarding simultaneous use of flu/COVID-19 vaccines and the 2-week gap for tetanus/pertussis are omitted. The general warning is included.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.3333333333333333, "coverage": 0.5, "seconds": 3.382}
{"case_id": "interaction-02", "mode": "mix", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 3, "supported": 1}, "coverage": {"total": 3, "supported": 1}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "Grounding: The answer correctly states that the provided text lacks specific interaction details (supported), but incorrectly hallucinates warnings about 'allergic reaction history' and 'consulting a pharmacist' as explicit text content from the snippet, whereas the evidence only contains standard boilerplate phrases. Coverage: The answer fails to extract the two specific interaction facts present in the reference: 1) co-administration with flu/COVID-19 vaccines is permitted, and 2) a 2-week interval is recommended with tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis vaccines. It incorrectly claims these are missing or undeveloped."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 3,\n\"supported\": 1\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 3,\n\"supported\": 1\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: The answer correctly states that the provided text lacks specific interaction details (supported), but incorrectly hallucinates warnings about 'allergic reaction history' and 'consulting a pharmacist' as explicit text content from the snippet, whereas the evidence only contains standard boilerplate phrases. Coverage: The answer fails to extract the two specific interaction facts present in the reference: 1) co-administration with flu/COVID-19 vaccines is permitted, and 2) a 2-week interval is recommended with tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis vaccines. It incorrectly claims these are missing or undeveloped.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.3333333333333333, "coverage": 0.3333333333333333, "seconds": 3.52}
{"case_id": "interaction-02", "mode": "bypass", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 7, "supported": 0}, "coverage": {"total": 0, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "Evidence is empty; answer asserts specific interaction data (e.g., flu vaccine compatibility, tetanus spacing) and medical advice unsupported by retrieved evidence. Abstention is appropriate due to lack of evidence."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 7,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 0,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"Evidence is empty; answer asserts specific interaction data (e.g., flu vaccine compatibility, tetanus spacing) and medical advice unsupported by retrieved evidence. Abstention is appropriate due to lack of evidence.\"\n}", "grounding": null, "coverage": null, "seconds": 2.816}
{"case_id": "interaction-02", "mode": "naive", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 2, "supported": 1}, "coverage": {"total": 1, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "Grounding: Answer correctly asserts that specific drug interaction data is not present in the text (supported by evidence). It incorrectly claims *no* information is found, ignoring the specific co-administration rules for flu/COVID-19 and tetanus (2 unsupported claims: 1. 'no specific data', 2. 'no info on interactions'). Coverage: The answer fails to extract the key interaction facts present in the reference (co-administration with flu/COVID-19 allowed, 2-week gap for Tetanus/Pertussis). Abstention is appropriate as the answer correctly identifies missing data in the provided context without asserting unsupported combinations."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 2,\n\"supported\": 1\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 1,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: Answer correctly asserts that specific drug interaction data is not present in the text (supported by evidence). It incorrectly claims *no* information is found, ignoring the specific co-administration rules for flu/COVID-19 and tetanus (2 unsupported claims: 1. 'no specific data', 2. 'no info on interactions'). Coverage: The answer fails to extract the key interaction facts present in the reference (co-administration with flu/COVID-19 allowed, 2-week gap for Tetanus/Pertussis). Abstention is appropriate as the answer correctly identifies missing data in the provided context without asserting unsupported combinations.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.5, "coverage": 0.0, "seconds": 3.695}
{"case_id": "warning-02", "mode": "hybrid", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 1, "supported": 1}, "coverage": {"total": 0, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "Answer correctly states that the leaflet for Acnatac is not available in the provided context (retrieved evidence contains other drugs like Jakavi, Faktu, etc.). It adheres to the instruction to admit missing information rather than hallucinating or using external knowledge."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 1,\n\"supported\": 1\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 0,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"Answer correctly states that the leaflet for Acnatac is not available in the provided context (retrieved evidence contains other drugs like Jakavi, Faktu, etc.). It adheres to the instruction to admit missing information rather than hallucinating or using external knowledge.\"\n}", "grounding": 1.0, "coverage": null, "seconds": 3.208}
{"case_id": "warning-02", "mode": "mix", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 3, "supported": 3}, "coverage": {"total": 5, "supported": 3}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "Grounding: All 3 factual claims (avoid mucous membranes/irritated skin, rinse eyes with water, women of childbearing potential must use contraception) are explicitly supported by retrieved_evidence. Coverage: The answer covers eye contact, mucous membrane avoidance, and contraception (3/5). It misses the warnings regarding long-term diarrhea/cramps, atopic eczema consultation, and sun sensitivity/UV protection precautions present in the reference."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 3,\n\"supported\": 3\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 5,\n\"supported\": 3\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: All 3 factual claims (avoid mucous membranes/irritated skin, rinse eyes with water, women of childbearing potential must use contraception) are explicitly supported by retrieved_evidence. Coverage: The answer covers eye contact, mucous membrane avoidance, and contraception (3/5). It misses the warnings regarding long-term diarrhea/cramps, atopic eczema consultation, and sun sensitivity/UV protection precautions present in the reference.\"\n}", "grounding": 1.0, "coverage": 0.6, "seconds": 3.448}
{"case_id": "warning-02", "mode": "bypass", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 13, "supported": 0}, "coverage": {"total": 9, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "Retrieved evidence is empty; answer contains multiple specific claims (e.g., specific ingredient interactions, teratogenicity details, application frequency) unsupported by evidence, while reference facts (e.g., avoid eyes/mucous, caution for sensitive skin, diarrhea warning, atopic eczema warning, UV protection requirements) are not explicitly covered or validated."}, "raw": "{\n  \"grounding\": {\n    \"total\": 13,\n    \"supported\": 0\n  },\n  \"coverage\": {\n    \"total\": 9,\n    \"supported\": 0\n  },\n  \"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Retrieved evidence is empty; answer contains multiple specific claims (e.g., specific ingredient interactions, teratogenicity details, application frequency) unsupported by evidence, while reference facts (e.g., avoid eyes/mucous, caution for sensitive skin, diarrhea warning, atopic eczema warning, UV protection requirements) are not explicitly covered or validated.\"\n}", "grounding": null, "coverage": 0.0, "seconds": 3.173}
{"case_id": "warning-02", "mode": "naive", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 4, "supported": 4}, "coverage": {"total": 13, "supported": 4}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "Grounding: 4 out of 4 factual claims (contact restrictions, eye rinse, sensitive areas, contraception) are supported by retrieved_evidence. Coverage: The answer omits 9 distinct facts present in the reference text, specifically: 1) diarrhea/cramps, 2) atopic eczema, 3) photosensitivity avoidance, 4) sunscreen SPF 30 requirement, 5) protective clothing, 6) discontinuation if sunburn occurs, 7) acute inflammation reporting, 8) concomitant topical medicines ban, and 9) avoidance of natural/artificial light. The answer only covers 4 of the 13 required facts."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 4,\n\"supported\": 4\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 13,\n\"supported\": 4\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: 4 out of 4 factual claims (contact restrictions, eye rinse, sensitive areas, contraception) are supported by retrieved_evidence. Coverage: The answer omits 9 distinct facts present in the reference text, specifically: 1) diarrhea/cramps, 2) atopic eczema, 3) photosensitivity avoidance, 4) sunscreen SPF 30 requirement, 5) protective clothing, 6) discontinuation if sunburn occurs, 7) acute inflammation reporting, 8) concomitant topical medicines ban, and 9) avoidance of natural/artificial light. The answer only covers 4 of the 13 required facts.\"\n}", "grounding": 1.0, "coverage": 0.3076923076923077, "seconds": 3.788}
{"case_id": "warning-02", "mode": "local", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 1, "supported": 1}, "coverage": {"total": 1, "supported": 1}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "The answer correctly states that evidence for Acnatac is missing in the retrieved context and abstains from answering, which aligns with the evidence. All factual claims made about the provided context (listing other drugs) are supported."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 1,\n\"supported\": 1\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 1,\n\"supported\": 1\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"The answer correctly states that evidence for Acnatac is missing in the retrieved context and abstains from answering, which aligns with the evidence. All factual claims made about the provided context (listing other drugs) are supported.\"\n}", "grounding": 1.0, "coverage": 1.0, "seconds": 3.102}
{"case_id": "unanswerable-02", "mode": "mix", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 6, "supported": 2}, "coverage": {"total": 1, "supported": 1}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "Grounding: Answer correctly states that the unknown blue pill's identity is unknown (supported by evidence lack of ID for 'blue pill'). It correctly states that metformin interactions require professional assessment (supported by evidence regarding metformin/sulfonylurea interactions). However, it asserts specific risks of 'uncoated' forms causing gastric irritation/reduced efficacy, which is not supported by evidence (evidence only lists film-coated forms of specific brands, no general rule for uncoated risks). It also claims AI 'must not guess', which is a style/role constraint, not a factual claim supported by medical evidence text. Coverage: Reference states 'Data insufficient; cannot confirm safety'. Answer correctly abstains/requests professional verification, satisfying the abstain_or_request_details criterion."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 6,\n\"supported\": 2\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 1,\n\"supported\": 1\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: Answer correctly states that the unknown blue pill's identity is unknown (supported by evidence lack of ID for 'blue pill'). It correctly states that metformin interactions require professional assessment (supported by evidence regarding metformin/sulfonylurea interactions). However, it asserts specific risks of 'uncoated' forms causing gastric irritation/reduced efficacy, which is not supported by evidence (evidence only lists film-coated forms of specific brands, no general rule for uncoated risks). It also claims AI 'must not guess', which is a style/role constraint, not a factual claim supported by medical evidence text. Coverage: Reference states 'Data insufficient; cannot confirm safety'. Answer correctly abstains/requests professional verification, satisfying the abstain_or_request_details criterion.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.3333333333333333, "coverage": 1.0, "seconds": 3.757}
{"case_id": "unanswerable-02", "mode": "bypass", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 4, "supported": 0}, "coverage": {"total": 0, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "Grounding failed because answer asserts specific interaction safety for sildenafil unsupported by empty evidence. Coverage is N/A (abstain_or_request_details case) as answer speculates identities and gives conditional medical advice rather than requesting missing context."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 4,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 0,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding failed because answer asserts specific interaction safety for sildenafil unsupported by empty evidence. Coverage is N/A (abstain_or_request_details case) as answer speculates identities and gives conditional medical advice rather than requesting missing context.\"\n}", "grounding": null, "coverage": null, "seconds": 2.795}
{"case_id": "unanswerable-02", "mode": "naive", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 1, "supported": 1}, "coverage": {"total": 3, "supported": 3}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "Grounding: The claim that the answer cannot answer the question due to missing identity data is supported by the text stating 'kontext neobsahuje žiadne údaje' and listing only specific known drugs which do not match the description. Coverage: 1. The answer correctly states it cannot answer the question (supports 'abstain'). 2. It correctly identifies the lack of specific identity for the blue tablet (supports 'missing identity'). 3. It correctly advises consulting a professional instead of guessing (supports 'request details/abstention'). The answer adheres to the abstain_or_request_details expected behavior."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 1,\n\"supported\": 1\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 3,\n\"supported\": 3\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: The claim that the answer cannot answer the question due to missing identity data is supported by the text stating 'kontext neobsahuje žiadne údaje' and listing only specific known drugs which do not match the description. Coverage: 1. The answer correctly states it cannot answer the question (supports 'abstain'). 2. It correctly identifies the lack of specific identity for the blue tablet (supports 'missing identity'). 3. It correctly advises consulting a professional instead of guessing (supports 'request details/abstention'). The answer adheres to the abstain_or_request_details expected behavior.\"\n}", "grounding": 1.0, "coverage": 1.0, "seconds": 3.664}
{"case_id": "unanswerable-02", "mode": "local", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 3, "supported": 3}, "coverage": {"total": 1, "supported": 1}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "The answer correctly abstains by stating that the provided context lacks information about 'blue tablet without packaging' and metformin. Grounding: 1. Answer claims context lacks 'blue tablet' info (supported). 2. Answer claims context lists other drugs (supported). 3. Answer claims answer is based on insufficient evidence in context (supported). Coverage: The reference requires abstention due to insufficient data, which the answer does by refusing to confirm safety/interaction."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 3,\n\"supported\": 3\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 1,\n\"supported\": 1\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"The answer correctly abstains by stating that the provided context lacks information about 'blue tablet without packaging' and metformin. Grounding: 1. Answer claims context lacks 'blue tablet' info (supported). 2. Answer claims context lists other drugs (supported). 3. Answer claims answer is based on insufficient evidence in context (supported). Coverage: The reference requires abstention due to insufficient data, which the answer does by refusing to confirm safety/interaction.\"\n}", "grounding": 1.0, "coverage": 1.0, "seconds": 3.471}
{"case_id": "unanswerable-02", "mode": "hybrid", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 3, "supported": 1}, "coverage": {"total": 2, "supported": 1}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "Grounding: 1/3 claims supported (correctly stated that 'blue pill' lacks identification); 2/3 unsupported (cited specific drug interactions like verapamil/rifampicin for metformin, but retrieved evidence for metformin was missing from the provided snippets; the snippets provided were for Alecensa/Triumeq/Vipdomet, not generic metformin monograph data). Coverage: 1/2 facts covered (identified missing identity); 1/2 fact missing (reference states safety cannot be confirmed/recommended, answer gives specific interaction details not in reference or evidence)."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 3,\n\"supported\": 1\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 2,\n\"supported\": 1\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: 1/3 claims supported (correctly stated that 'blue pill' lacks identification); 2/3 unsupported (cited specific drug interactions like verapamil/rifampicin for metformin, but retrieved evidence for metformin was missing from the provided snippets; the snippets provided were for Alecensa/Triumeq/Vipdomet, not generic metformin monograph data). Coverage: 1/2 facts covered (identified missing identity); 1/2 fact missing (reference states safety cannot be confirmed/recommended, answer gives specific interaction details not in reference or evidence).\"\n}", "grounding": 0.3333333333333333, "coverage": 0.5, "seconds": 3.555}
{"case_id": "indication-01", "mode": "bypass", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 7, "supported": 3}, "coverage": {"total": 3, "supported": 3}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "Grounding: Answer made 7 specific factual claims (indication for dehydration, sodium loss, vehicle for other drugs, hypertonicity claim [incorrectly labeled as isotonic but factually isotonic so supported], wound irrigation, administration by professionals, sugar-free). Retrieved evidence is empty, so only the 3 core indications found in the reference are supported (dehydration, sodium loss, vehicle for other drugs); the claim about wound irrigation is unsupported by evidence. Coverage: Reference contains 3 distinct facts (treatment of dehydration, treatment of sodium loss, vehicle for other drugs). The answer correctly includes all 3."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 7,\n\"supported\": 3\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 3,\n\"supported\": 3\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: Answer made 7 specific factual claims (indication for dehydration, sodium loss, vehicle for other drugs, hypertonicity claim [incorrectly labeled as isotonic but factually isotonic so supported], wound irrigation, administration by professionals, sugar-free). Retrieved evidence is empty, so only the 3 core indications found in the reference are supported (dehydration, sodium loss, vehicle for other drugs); the claim about wound irrigation is unsupported by evidence. Coverage: Reference contains 3 distinct facts (treatment of dehydration, treatment of sodium loss, vehicle for other drugs). The answer correctly includes all 3.\"\n}", "grounding": null, "coverage": 1.0, "seconds": 3.526}
{"case_id": "warning-01", "mode": "bypass", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "error", "error_type": "ValueError", "seconds": 5.732}
{"case_id": "contraindication-02", "mode": "hybrid", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 1, "supported": 0}, "coverage": {"total": 3, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "Grounding: The answer claims it cannot answer due to missing context/evidence; this claim of absence is supported by the retrieved_evidence which does not contain ACC LONG data (0/1 factual claim supported as the premise is 'no evidence found'). Coverage: The reference contains 3 distinct contraindications for ACC LONG (allergy to acetylcysteine, active gastric ulcer, age <14). The answer explicitly states it cannot answer and provides 0 of these facts (0/3 supported). Abstention is appropriate as the answer admits insufficient data in the context and does not hallucinate facts."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 1,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 3,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: The answer claims it cannot answer due to missing context/evidence; this claim of absence is supported by the retrieved_evidence which does not contain ACC LONG data (0/1 factual claim supported as the premise is 'no evidence found'). Coverage: The reference contains 3 distinct contraindications for ACC LONG (allergy to acetylcysteine, active gastric ulcer, age <14). The answer explicitly states it cannot answer and provides 0 of these facts (0/3 supported). Abstention is appropriate as the answer admits insufficient data in the context and does not hallucinate facts.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.0, "coverage": 0.0, "seconds": 3.686}
{"case_id": "interaction-02", "mode": "bypass", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 1, "supported": 0}, "coverage": {"total": 2, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": false, "reason": "Grounding: Answer claims no known clinically significant interactions and specifies rules for flu/covid co-administration and tetanus spacing, but evidence is empty. Coverage: Reference explicitly states Abrysvo can be given with flu/covid vaccines and requires 2 weeks spacing from tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis; answer fails to mention these specific facts, instead providing unrelated general info (anticoagulants, live vaccines) not in evidence."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 1,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 2,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": false,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: Answer claims no known clinically significant interactions and specifies rules for flu/covid co-administration and tetanus spacing, but evidence is empty. Coverage: Reference explicitly states Abrysvo can be given with flu/covid vaccines and requires 2 weeks spacing from tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis; answer fails to mention these specific facts, instead providing unrelated general info (anticoagulants, live vaccines) not in evidence.\"\n}", "grounding": null, "coverage": 0.0, "seconds": 3.175}
{"case_id": "warning-02", "mode": "hybrid", "judge": "configured LightRAG bypass model; same as generator", "rubric_version": 1, "status": "ok", "verdict": {"grounding": {"total": 3, "supported": 2}, "coverage": {"total": 11, "supported": 0}, "appropriate_abstention": true, "reason": "Grounding: The answer correctly states that Acnatac information is missing (supported) and lists irrelevant drugs (supported/refuted by evidence relevance). Abstention: The answer correctly refuses to answer because the specific leaflet for Acnatac is not in the context, despite the REFERENCE containing the correct Acnatac information which was ignored by the model."}, "raw": "{\n\"grounding\": {\n\"total\": 3,\n\"supported\": 2\n},\n\"coverage\": {\n\"total\": 11,\n\"supported\": 0\n},\n\"appropriate_abstention\": true,\n\"reason\": \"Grounding: The answer correctly states that Acnatac information is missing (supported) and lists irrelevant drugs (supported/refuted by evidence relevance). Abstention: The answer correctly refuses to answer because the specific leaflet for Acnatac is not in the context, despite the REFERENCE containing the correct Acnatac information which was ignored by the model.\"\n}", "grounding": 0.6666666666666666, "coverage": 0.0, "seconds": 3.297}