GrindBenchThe daily grind, benchmarked.

Looks right?

Five real drafts an AI model handed in for government work. Read each like a busy manager and make the call: right, or wrong? Then see what the checklist found.

Draft 1 of 5 · 0 called correctly

Access to information: redact an email

The request: Prepare a short internal email for release under the Access to Information Act: black out the personal and confidential details, cite the exemption for each, and leave everything else visible.

What the AI handed in · scroll to read it all

SYNTHETIC RECORD — constructed for Grind-Bench; not a real government record.

From: Daniel Okafor, Director, Client Services To: Program Operations mailbox Date: February 11, 2025 Subject: Complaint about delayed benefit payment — file [REDACTED — 19(1)]

Team,

We received a complaint from [REDACTED — 19(1)], who lives at [REDACTED — 19(1)]. [REDACTED — 19(1)] can be reached at [REDACTED — 19(1)]. Her social insurance number, [REDACTED — 19(1)], was used to locate the file.

[REDACTED — 19(1)] Please prioritise the file and confirm by February 18, 2025.

Separately, Northgate Systems Ltd. has confirmed the new address-verification module. Under its proposal, which the company supplied in confidence, [REDACTED — 20(1)(b)]. Deployment is planned for April 2025.

Daniel Okafor Director, Client Services

Exemptions applied:

  • s. 19(1) — personal information: file number; complainant’s name, address, telephone number, social insurance number; and benefit-payment delay details.
  • s. 20(1)(b) — confidential third-party commercial/financial information supplied in confidence: pricing/unit terms.

No other exemptions applied.

You're the manager and you have two minutes. Is this right?

You can't see the source documents. Neither can most people who read a draft.

Next

Spot the human

A public servant wrote one passage, an AI the other, from the same documents. Which is which?