General benchmarks measure overall ability. Groundtruth is narrower. It checks whether a model can read an actual exploration report or geological filing and answer questions about what the document says. The questions are not written by hand. A pipeline goes through the corpus, works out what is worth testing, and drafts each question together with a reference answer and a grading rubric. Every rubric line points to a passage in the source. The finished set is kept private so no model can train on it.
The grading model is never the one being tested. It scores each answer from 0 to 10 against the rubric, either pointwise (one judge pass per question) or pairwise, judging two models’ answers together with each ordering used once so answer order doesn’t count. It also marks any answer that brings in material from outside the corpus. The rubrics are built so a high score is hard to fake. Each question has a pass/fail gate that must be cleared before any partial credit counts. The partial-credit points don’t overlap, some concepts are required for a full mark, and a do-not-credit list rules out common mistakes. The judge shows which parts of each answer earned credit.
Version 1.1.0 added the public leaderboard. Behind it are three 50-question sites, built from Western Australian exploration reports, USGS records, and NI 43-101 technical filings. A fourth, smaller site covers the Yudnamutana Copper district in South Australia. It uses 34 openly licensed deposit records (CC BY 4.0) and ships in the repo as a worked example. The code is MIT-licensed, and the corpus-to-rubric pipeline is included, so you can point it at a different body of documents.
