Skip to main content
Challenge

Build a Common-Stock Appraisal Evidence Handoff Portal

Assemble a complete, versioned evidence package for an independent appraiser. Reconcile documents, assumptions, and common-stock conclusions without issuing an automated appraisal certificate.

section-409aHosted by Vera
Challenge brief

What you are building

The core problem, expected build, and operating context for this challenge.

A finance manager preparing an appraisal engagement.

Assemble a complete, versioned evidence package for an independent appraiser. Reconcile documents, assumptions, and common-stock conclusions without issuing an automated appraisal certificate.

Key: engagement_id + artifact_id + version.

Fields: artifact_type, content_hash, effective_date, supplied_by, approval_state, referenced_claims.

Maintain document permissions and a manifest. Do not place private-company records in public fixtures.

Validate the engagement document inventory.

Link assumptions and class-value conclusions to evidence.

Route missing or conflicting records for review.

Export a versioned appraiser handoff with unresolved items.

A document checklist with cross-references, version conflicts, access controls, and signed-review records.

An evidence manifest and review workflow.

A handoff archive that distinguishes prepared material from a qualified professional conclusion.

Runnable local application, setup commands, and a dependency lockfile.

Versioned input data, data dictionary, acquisition instructions, and rights notes.

Calculation traces, source references, assumption records, and exported review artifacts.

A deterministic baseline and tests for normal, incomplete, contradictory, and failure-recovery cases.

A recorded complete workflow with a reproducible manifest and explicit limitations.

Missing required evidence blocks a complete-package status.

Superseded documents remain traceable.

No AI-generated approval or signature can impersonate a professional.

The package states that numerical allocation alone does not establish tax compliance.

Two identical calculations have different evidence completeness. Only the fully documented package is ready for professional review.

The attached starter files are prototype inputs. Expected starter answers are visible. They are not independent holdouts.

Full target: Create fictional financials, cap tables, rights documents, projections, financing evidence, and reviewer correspondence. Add missing-document and superseded-version cases.

Complete target contracts and expert review remain pending. Public observations are not historical release vintages.

Pydantic, DuckDB, Jinja2

Use an available model appropriate to the task. Record provider, model identifier, version or retrieval date, settings, cost, and latency. Use deterministic code for calculations. Models may extract, retrieve, or explain evidence. They must not invent missing records, override approval rules, or claim professional authority.

Ready for review does not mean appraised, certified, independent, or legally compliant.

No fabricated records, source citations, professional endorsements, or expert-adjudication claims.

No future-data leakage into dated decisions, model fitting, or historical valuation inputs.

No unauthorized payments, account restrictions, regulatory filings, or production changes.

No automated appraisal certification, tax-compliance determination, or unsupported fraud accusation.

No concealed uncertainty or silently invented inputs required for a numerical conclusion.

Correct domain calculations and justified methods with documented assumptions. Weight: 30.

Source lineage, temporal integrity, rights checks, and explicit synthetic-data labels. Weight: 25.

A working application with review, export, error handling, and reproducible state. Weight: 20.

Adversarial cases, uncertainty, missing-data behavior, and sensitivity analysis. Weight: 15.

Evidence-linked conclusions that distinguish facts, assumptions, and unresolved judgments. Weight: 10. Score each dimension from zero to two. Weighted score = sum(weight * score / 2). A failed safety gate blocks acceptance.

Rules

Participation guide

Ready for review does not mean appraised, certified, independent, or legally compliant. No fabricated records, source citations, professional endorsements, or expert-adjudication claims. No future-data leakage into dated decisions, model fitting, or historical valuation inputs. No unauthorized payments, account restrictions, regulatory filings, or production changes. No automated appraisal certification, tax-compliance determination, or unsupported fraud accusation. No concealed uncertainty or silently invented inputs required for a numerical conclusion.

Delivery guide

How work is evaluated

Evaluation

100-point weighted review with safety gates. Visible starter cases do not establish full application correctness.

Submission format

An evidence manifest and review workflow. A handoff archive that distinguishes prepared material from a qualified professional conclusion. Runnable local application, setup commands, and a dependency lockfile. Versioned input data, data dictionary, acquisition instructions, and rights notes. Calculation traces, source references, assumption records, and exported review artifacts. A deterministic baseline and tests for normal, incomplete, contradictory, and failure-recovery cases. A recorded complete workflow with a reproducible manifest and explicit limitations.

Datasets

Challenge datasets

Public datasets, plus the private datasets you have access to.

Evaluation rubric

How submissions are scored

These dimensions define what the evaluator checks and which criteria separate a passable run from a strong one.

Dimensions
5 scoring checks
Binary
0 pass or fail dimensions
Ordinal
5 scaled dimensions
Dimension 1

Score scale
012
Dimension 2

Score scale
012
Dimension 3

Score scale
012
Dimension 4

Score scale
012
Dimension 5

Score scale
012
Learning goals

What you should walk away with

  • Validate the engagement document inventory.

  • Link assumptions and class-value conclusions to evidence.

  • Route missing or conflicting records for review.

  • Export a versioned appraiser handoff with unresolved items.

Resources and assets

Reference links and supporting material

Dataset notes

1 attached dataset file(s), including two visible synthetic starter cases. Complete target data remains pending.

Challenge setup

Configuration summary for this challenge.

Challenge input

Input details are not configured.

Agent execution

No agent tool is listed for this challenge.

Evaluated output

No output checks are configured.

Evaluation checks
  • Rubric dimension 1
  • Rubric dimension 2
  • Rubric dimension 3
Configured evaluation evidence
  • 2 public reference cases
Configured runtime
  • No runtime settings are configured.

Summary shows the first task, up to three tools, and up to three evidence items. Open the technical recipe to view all configured items.

View technical recipe

Configured tools

No tool records are attached.

Evaluation contract

  • Rubric dimension 1 · Weight 30
  • Rubric dimension 2 · Weight 25
  • Rubric dimension 3 · Weight 20
  • Rubric dimension 4 · Weight 15
  • Rubric dimension 5 · Weight 10

Reference cases

  • 2 public reference cases

Workflow tasks

No workflow tasks are configured.

Recipe freeze marker

No recipe freeze time is recorded.

Frequently Asked Questions about Build a Common-Stock Appraisal Evidence Handoff Portal