# Judging rubric (v3, 5 criteria, fixed before any run)

Judge each document as a senior partner reviewing a junior lawyer's draft for a real client. The date of the case is October 2026. Score each criterion 1–5 using the anchors.

1. **Qualidade das fontes** — cites the MOST RELEVANT legislation and case law available, the authorities that most strengthen each argument (e.g. recent decisions of higher courts on similar facts, the specific provision rather than a generic one). Wrong, misquoted, misattributed or non-existent authorities are penalised. 5: the strongest available authorities, accurately used; 3: correct but thin, generic or not the most relevant; 1: key points unsupported, or authorities wrong/misrepresented.
2. **Lei em vigor** — relies on the version of each provision in force on the date of the case. 5: everything current; 3: one outdated or misnumbered provision that does not change the advice; 1: outdated law that changes the advice to the client.
3. **Estratégia** — serves the client's stated objectives and protects the client, avoiding arguments that backfire. 5: what a strong specialist would do; 3: acceptable but with a risky or weak move, or one objective poorly served; 1: advice that harms the client.
4. **Conclusão correta** — reaches the right legal answer for these facts. 5: correct and fully reasoned; 3: correct but with gaps; 1: wrong conclusion.
5. **Qualidade dos argumentos** — sound legal reasoning that anticipates the other side's arguments and answers them. 5: rigorous and anticipates the counter-arguments; 3: sound but one-sided or with a gap; 1: weak or flawed reasoning.

Maximum 25 per document.

## How to judge "Qualidade das fontes" fairly
Before scoring, identify the 2–3 central arguments of the case and search for the strongest authorities on each yourself, in the Alpaca Law database AND on the web (Portugal: DGSI dgsi.pt, jurisprudencia.pt, diariodarepublica.pt; France: Légifrance legifrance.gouv.fr, Judilibre courdecassation.fr). Score each document against what you found.

Never call an authority "non-existent" unless you searched BOTH Alpaca Law (by number, date and topic) AND the web (official sources). If it exists only outside Alpaca Law, it counts as real.

Tools: Alpaca Law via ToolSearch query "select:mcp__claude_ai_Alpaca_Law__search_legal_docs,mcp__claude_ai_Alpaca_Law__read_legal_doc,mcp__claude_ai_Alpaca_Law__get_article_at_date,mcp__claude_ai_Alpaca_Law__get_law_index_at_date"; web via WebSearch / WebFetch (load with ToolSearch if needed).

Stay blind: read only the files named in your task.

## Report format (concise)
- The strongest authorities you found for the central arguments (1 line each).
- Per document: 3–6 bullets on the decisive strengths and errors (with what you verified).
- Table: one row per document (A, B and, for the French cases, C); columns the 5 criteria and total /25.
- Winner (or tie) and a 3-sentence justification.