Banking case review
Read the available evidence, explain what it establishes, and prepare the next operator action.
50 development cases · evidence through event 002 · no connected bank APIsSeparate a customer report from a confirmed bank record.
A payment authorised, debited or sent may still have an unresolved destination. The agent identifies the missing record and prepares a supported response.
Inspect the development inputs →From available evidence to the next action
Read
Case-local documents
Numbered evidence citations
Reconcile
Observed facts and uncertainty
Missing records and authority
Respond
Customer response
Proposed operator action
Python · Pydantic AI · MiniMax / Sonnet · OpenRouter · read-only retrieval · no operational writes
Compare the saved baseline and experiment.
dwelly-banking · minimax/minimax-m3
Reference run
dwelly-banking · anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5
Change actor from MiniMax M3 to Sonnet 5.5 on all 50 reviewed banking cases
dwelly-banking · claude-sonnet-5-5
Sonnet 5.5 through Anthropic versus saved MiniMax M3 on all 50 reviewed banking cases
All saved answers also receive a common retrospective model review. Model judgments, completion and observed citations do not establish real operational success. No trusted outcome labels are supplied; operational correctness remains unknown. Public examples are not Reality Test answers.
Show a real case, including its limits.
Code and video freeze: 16:30 BST. Reality Test results: 17:00 BST. Demo, launch posts and submission receipt remain separate deliverables.
Submission record ↗