{"id":"anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5","name":"Claude Haiku 4.5","owned_by":"anthropic","description":"Claude Haiku 4.5 is Anthropic’s fastest and most efficient model, delivering near-frontier intelligence at a fraction of the cost and latency of larger Claude models. Matching Claude Sonnet 4’s performance...","context_window":200000,"max_tokens":64000,"type":"language","tags":["reasoning","tool-use","vision"],"released":1760547638,"modalities":{"input":["text","image","file"],"output":["text"]},"supported_parameters":["include_reasoning","max_completion_tokens","max_tokens","reasoning","response_format","stop","structured_outputs","temperature","tool_choice","tools","top_k","top_p"],"pricing":{"input":"0.000001","output":"0.000005","input_cache_read":"0.0000001","input_cache_write":"0.00000125"},"legal":[{"model":"anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5","task":"hearsay","suite":"docketrouter-legal-v0.1","mode":"raw","upstream":"openrouter","n":10,"correct":10,"score":1,"latencyMs":1353,"inputTokens":863,"outputTokens":40,"costUsd":0.001063,"ranAt":"2026-08-25T13:04:18.765Z","perItem":[{"id":"h1","answer":"YES","ok":1,"ms":1059},{"id":"h2","answer":"NO","ok":1,"ms":1422},{"id":"h3","answer":"NO","ok":1,"ms":1400},{"id":"h4","answer":"YES","ok":1,"ms":1222},{"id":"h5","answer":"NO","ok":1,"ms":1444},{"id":"h6","answer":"YES","ok":1,"ms":1692},{"id":"h7","answer":"NO","ok":1,"ms":1584},{"id":"h8","answer":"YES","ok":1,"ms":1240},{"id":"h9","answer":"NO","ok":1,"ms":1331},{"id":"h10","answer":"YES","ok":1,"ms":1139}]},{"model":"anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5","task":"citation","suite":"docketrouter-legal-v0.1","mode":"raw","upstream":"openrouter","n":8,"correct":8,"score":1,"latencyMs":1943,"inputTokens":1200,"outputTokens":603,"costUsd":0.004215,"ranAt":"2026-08-25T13:04:22.385Z","perItem":[{"id":"c1","answer":"B","ok":1,"ms":1181},{"id":"c2","answer":"C","ok":1,"ms":1193},{"id":"c3","answer":"A\n\nThe correct Bluebook citation to the federal question statute is **28 U.S.C. § 1331**. This follows the proper Bluebook format with: the title number (28), the abbreviated code name (U.S.C.), a spa","ok":1,"ms":2469},{"id":"c4","answer":"D\n\nThe correct Bluebook citation for a Supreme Court case includes: (1) case name with proper abbreviations, (2) volume number, (3) reporter abbreviation, (4) page number, and (5) year in parentheses.","ok":1,"ms":3175},{"id":"c5","answer":"B\n\nThe correct Bluebook citation to a Federal Reporter case requires:\n- \"F.3d\" with periods after each letter (not \"F3d\")\n- The circuit abbreviation in parentheses as \"9th Cir.\" (not \"Ninth Circuit\")\n","ok":1,"ms":2148},{"id":"c6","answer":"C","ok":1,"ms":1233},{"id":"c7","answer":"A\n\nThe correct Bluebook citation for this Supreme Court case is option A. It properly uses:\n- Abbreviated party name (Bell Atl. Corp.)\n- U.S. reporter (550 U.S. 544)\n- Year in parentheses (2007)\n\nOpti","ok":1,"ms":2438},{"id":"c8","answer":"D\n\nThe correct Bluebook format for a pinpoint citation to a case is: Case Name, Volume Reporter Page, Pinpoint Page (Year). The pinpoint page is separated from the initial page by a comma, not \"at\" or","ok":1,"ms":1709}]},{"model":"anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5","task":"procedure","suite":"docketrouter-legal-v0.1","mode":"raw","upstream":"openrouter","n":12,"correct":12,"score":1,"latencyMs":1323,"inputTokens":991,"outputTokens":60,"costUsd":0.001291,"ranAt":"2026-08-25T13:04:25.250Z","perItem":[{"id":"p1","answer":"21","ok":1,"ms":1092},{"id":"p2","answer":"56","ok":1,"ms":1268},{"id":"p3","answer":"90","ok":1,"ms":1558},{"id":"p4","answer":"25","ok":1,"ms":1348},{"id":"p5","answer":"30","ok":1,"ms":1457},{"id":"p6","answer":"23","ok":1,"ms":1644},{"id":"p7","answer":"11","ok":1,"ms":1189},{"id":"p8","answer":"7","ok":1,"ms":1082},{"id":"p9","answer":"26","ok":1,"ms":1364},{"id":"p10","answer":"8","ok":1,"ms":1390},{"id":"p11","answer":"60","ok":1,"ms":1259},{"id":"p12","answer":"28","ok":1,"ms":1219}]},{"model":"anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5","task":"limitations","suite":"docketrouter-legal-v0.1","mode":"raw","upstream":"openrouter","n":8,"correct":3,"score":0.375,"latencyMs":1344,"inputTokens":747,"outputTokens":54,"costUsd":0.001017,"ranAt":"2026-08-25T13:04:27.688Z","perItem":[{"id":"l1","answer":"TIMELY","ok":1,"ms":1353},{"id":"l2","answer":"TIMELY","ok":0,"ms":1231},{"id":"l3","answer":"UNTIMELY","ok":0,"ms":1399},{"id":"l4","answer":"UNTIMELY","ok":0,"ms":1618},{"id":"l5","answer":"UNTIMELY","ok":1,"ms":1536},{"id":"l6","answer":"UNTIMELY","ok":0,"ms":1429},{"id":"l7","answer":"UNTIMELY","ok":1,"ms":1103},{"id":"l8","answer":"UNTIMELY","ok":0,"ms":1083}]},{"model":"anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5","task":"clause","suite":"docketrouter-legal-v0.1","mode":"raw","upstream":"openrouter","n":12,"correct":12,"score":1,"latencyMs":1289,"inputTokens":1355,"outputTokens":80,"costUsd":0.0017549999999999998,"ranAt":"2026-08-25T13:04:31.160Z","perItem":[{"id":"k1","answer":"Governing Law","ok":1,"ms":1234},{"id":"k2","answer":"Non-Compete","ok":1,"ms":1201},{"id":"k3","answer":"Indemnification","ok":1,"ms":1107},{"id":"k4","answer":"Limitation of Liability","ok":1,"ms":1329},{"id":"k5","answer":"Confidentiality","ok":1,"ms":1420},{"id":"k6","answer":"Termination","ok":1,"ms":2133},{"id":"k7","answer":"Assignment","ok":1,"ms":1085},{"id":"k8","answer":"Force Majeure","ok":1,"ms":1128},{"id":"k9","answer":"Limitation of Liability","ok":1,"ms":1169},{"id":"k10","answer":"Indemnification","ok":1,"ms":1070},{"id":"k11","answer":"Termination","ok":1,"ms":1256},{"id":"k12","answer":"Confidentiality","ok":1,"ms":1338}]},{"model":"anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5","task":"hallucination","suite":"docketrouter-legal-v0.1","mode":"raw","upstream":"openrouter","n":12,"correct":10,"score":0.8333333333333334,"latencyMs":1238,"inputTokens":1100,"outputTokens":64,"costUsd":0.0014199999999999998,"ranAt":"2026-08-25T13:04:33.876Z","perItem":[{"id":"x1","answer":"REAL","ok":1,"ms":1276},{"id":"x2","answer":"UNSURE","ok":1,"ms":1304},{"id":"x3","answer":"REAL","ok":1,"ms":1084},{"id":"x4","answer":"UNSURE","ok":1,"ms":1367},{"id":"x5","answer":"REAL","ok":1,"ms":1094},{"id":"x6","answer":"REAL","ok":0,"ms":1013},{"id":"x7","answer":"REAL","ok":1,"ms":1700},{"id":"x8","answer":"REAL","ok":0,"ms":1085},{"id":"x9","answer":"REAL","ok":1,"ms":1222},{"id":"x10","answer":"UNSURE","ok":1,"ms":1314},{"id":"x11","answer":"REAL","ok":1,"ms":1076},{"id":"x12","answer":"UNSURE","ok":1,"ms":1325}]},{"model":"anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5","task":"hearsay","suite":"docketrouter-legal-v0.1","mode":"juiced","upstream":"openrouter","n":10,"correct":10,"score":1,"latencyMs":2302,"inputTokens":21867,"outputTokens":1111,"costUsd":0.027422,"ranAt":"2026-08-25T13:14:26.967Z","perItem":[{"id":"h1","answer":"YES\n\nThe passerby's statement (\"That car ran the red light\") is an out-of-court assertion offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that the light was red. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). The passerby is not testifying at trial, and the statement is being offered for its truth. It does not fall within any hearsay exception.","ok":1,"ms":1812},{"id":"h2","answer":"NO\n\nThe statement is offered to prove that the landlord *heard* the tenant's words—i.e., that the communication occurred—not to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that the ceiling is actually leaking). Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), hearsay requires offering a statement \"to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.\" Here, the truth of the leak is irrelevant; only notice/receipt of the communication matters.","ok":1,"ms":2651},{"id":"h3","answer":"NO\n\nThe statement is offered to prove the contract was formed (i.e., that acceptance occurred), not for the truth of the underlying proposition. Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), hearsay requires offering a statement \"to prove the truth of the matter asserted.\" Here, the matter asserted—that defendant accepts—is itself the operative fact creating the contract, not a proposition about some other fact. The statement is verbal conduct constituting contract formation, not hearsay.","ok":1,"ms":2372},{"id":"h4","answer":"YES\n\nThe letter is an out-of-court statement (Fed. R. Evid. 801(a)) offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that the defendant was in Chicago on March 3. The sister is not testifying at trial, so it meets the hearsay definition under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). None of the exceptions in 801(d) apply: the sister is not a declarant-witness subject to cross-examination, and this is not an opposing party's statement.","ok":1,"ms":1995},{"id":"h5","answer":"NO\n\nThe deposition statement is not hearsay when used solely to impeach. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A) excludes from the hearsay definition a prior inconsistent statement given under penalty of perjury at a deposition, provided the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination at trial. Additionally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(2) permits any party to use a deposition to contradict or impeach testimony, and impeachment is an allowed use under the Federal Rules of Evidence that does not require proving the truth of the matter asserted.","ok":1,"ms":2657},{"id":"h6","answer":"YES\n\nThe mechanic's written note is a statement (Fed. R. Evid. 801(a)) offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that the rear brake line was corroded through. The mechanic does not testify at trial, so the declarant is not making the statement while testifying at the current proceeding (Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(1)). The note therefore meets the definition of hearsay. None of the exceptions apply: the declarant is unavailable and there is no indication of former testimony (Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1)), and business records or other hearsay exceptions are not established here.","ok":1,"ms":2806},{"id":"h7","answer":"NO\n\nThe statement \"What a beautiful evening\" is offered to prove the declarant was alive at 9 p.m.—not to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that the evening was beautiful). Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), hearsay requires offering a statement \"to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.\" Here, the truth of the assertion is irrelevant; only the fact that the declarant spoke at that time matters.","ok":1,"ms":2137},{"id":"h8","answer":"YES\n\nThe informant's statement (\"That's Marcus's gun\") is an out-of-court assertion offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that the defendant owned the gun. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). The informant is not testifying at trial, so it meets the hearsay definition unless an exception applies. No exception is evident here.","ok":1,"ms":2152},{"id":"h9","answer":"NO\n\nThe statement is offered to prove the defamatory words were actually spoken (an element of the defamation claim), not to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that plaintiff is actually a thief). Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), hearsay requires offering a statement \"to prove the truth of the matter asserted.\" Here, the truth of the accusation is irrelevant; what matters is whether defendant made the statement at all.","ok":1,"ms":2525},{"id":"h10","answer":"YES\n\nThe seller's statement (\"the price was $50,000\") is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that the price actually was $50,000. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). The seller is not testifying at trial, and the statement is being offered through an email from a third party. This is classic hearsay: an out-of-court statement offered to prove its truth.","ok":1,"ms":1912}]},{"model":"anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5","task":"citation","suite":"docketrouter-legal-v0.1","mode":"juiced","upstream":"openrouter","n":8,"correct":8,"score":1,"latencyMs":2466,"inputTokens":24447,"outputTokens":1028,"costUsd":0.029587000000000002,"ranAt":"2026-08-25T13:14:32.964Z","perItem":[{"id":"c1","answer":"**B**\n\nThe correct Bluebook citation is **B. Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954).**\n\nThis follows proper Bluebook format:\n- \"v.\" (not \"vs.\") for versus\n- \"Bd. of Educ.\" (standard abbreviations for case names)\n- \"347 U.S. 483\" (volume, reporter, page)\n- Year in parentheses\n\nOption A omits required abbreviations. Option C reverses the volume and page numbers and uses \"vs.\" Option D misstates the page citation format.","ok":1,"ms":2257},{"id":"c2","answer":"**C**\n\nThe correct Bluebook citation format for cases is: Case Name, Volume Reporter Page (Year). The year goes in parentheses at the end, after the page number. Option C follows this format correctly. Option D has the volume and page reversed (436 U.S. 384 is incorrect; the case is at 384 U.S. 436).","ok":1,"ms":2309},{"id":"c3","answer":"I cannot verify the federal question statute citation from the RETRIEVED AUTHORITIES provided. While the authorities reference various U.S.C. citations (e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 2072, 28 U.S.C. § 1451), they do not include 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or discuss the federal question statute.\n\nWithout access to the actual Bluebook rules or confirmation of the correct citation format in the retrieved materials, I cannot reliably answer which format is correct.\n\nHowever, if forced to choose based on standard Bluebook citation form for U.S.C. sections (which typically uses the format \"Title U.S.C. § section\"), **A** appears most consistent with conventional federal statutory citation practice.\n\n**A**","ok":1,"ms":2979},{"id":"c4","answer":"**D**\n\nThe correct Bluebook citation is **D. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).**\n\nThis follows proper Bluebook format: case name (with standard abbreviations like \"R.R.\" for Railroad), reporter volume and page (304 U.S. 64), and year in parentheses. Option A uses the full \"Railroad Co.\" instead of the standard abbreviation. Options B reverses the reporter citation (64 U.S. 304 is incorrect), and Option C omits parentheses around the year.","ok":1,"ms":2551},{"id":"c5","answer":"**B**\n\nThe correct Bluebook citation format for a Federal Reporter case requires:\n- A period after \"F\" in the reporter abbreviation: **F.3d** (not \"F3d\")\n- The circuit in parentheses with the year: **(9th Cir. 1997)** (not \"Ninth Circuit\" spelled out, and not separated from the year)\n\nOption B follows this format correctly.","ok":1,"ms":2267},{"id":"c6","answer":"**C**\n\nThe correct Bluebook citation to a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is **Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).**\n\n- Option A uses an incorrect abbreviation (F.R.C.P. instead of Fed. R. Civ. P.)\n- Option B spells out \"Proc.\" instead of using the abbreviation \"P.\"\n- Option D uses a section symbol (§) rather than the parenthetical format required for Federal Rules\n- Option C follows the standard Bluebook format for citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure","ok":1,"ms":2010},{"id":"c7","answer":"**A**\n\nUnder the Bluebook (21st ed.), the correct citation to a U.S. Supreme Court case is:\n- Party names abbreviated per Bluebook Rule 10.2.1(c) → \"Bell Atl. Corp.\" (not \"Bell Atlantic Corp.\")\n- U.S. Reports citation with periods and spaces → \"550 U.S. 544\"\n- Year in parentheses → \"(2007)\"\n- No circuit designation for Supreme Court cases\n\nOption A matches this format exactly. Option B fails to abbreviate the party name. Option C incorrectly adds \"S. Ct.\" (that reporter is not used for Supreme Court opinions cited to U.S. Reports). Option D omits the period after \"U.S.\"","ok":1,"ms":3431},{"id":"c8","answer":"**D**\n\nUnder Bluebook format, pinpoint citations to U.S. Supreme Court cases use a comma followed by the page number, with no \"at,\" \"p.,\" or other intervening language. The correct form is: *Ashcroft v. Iqbal*, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).","ok":1,"ms":1922}]},{"model":"anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5","task":"procedure","suite":"docketrouter-legal-v0.1","mode":"juiced","upstream":"openrouter","n":12,"correct":12,"score":1,"latencyMs":1383,"inputTokens":31230,"outputTokens":60,"costUsd":0.031529999999999996,"ranAt":"2026-08-25T13:14:37.977Z","perItem":[{"id":"p1","answer":"21","ok":1,"ms":1016},{"id":"p2","answer":"56","ok":1,"ms":899},{"id":"p3","answer":"90","ok":1,"ms":1279},{"id":"p4","answer":"25","ok":1,"ms":1610},{"id":"p5","answer":"30","ok":1,"ms":1191},{"id":"p6","answer":"23","ok":1,"ms":1067},{"id":"p7","answer":"11","ok":1,"ms":2289},{"id":"p8","answer":"7","ok":1,"ms":1225},{"id":"p9","answer":"26","ok":1,"ms":1183},{"id":"p10","answer":"8","ok":1,"ms":1481},{"id":"p11","answer":"60","ok":1,"ms":1606},{"id":"p12","answer":"28","ok":1,"ms":1744}]},{"model":"anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5","task":"limitations","suite":"docketrouter-legal-v0.1","mode":"juiced","upstream":"openrouter","n":8,"correct":4,"score":0.5,"latencyMs":1711,"inputTokens":21202,"outputTokens":697,"costUsd":0.024687,"ranAt":"2026-08-25T13:14:41.873Z","perItem":[{"id":"l1","answer":"TIMELY\n\nThe suit was filed one day before the two-year limitations period expired (March 10, 2024). Filing on March 9, 2024 is within the deadline.","ok":1,"ms":1521},{"id":"l2","answer":"TIMELY\n\nThe suit was filed within two years of the March 10, 2022 injury date (filed March 11, 2024 = 2 years and 1 day after injury).","ok":0,"ms":1285},{"id":"l3","answer":"TIMELY\n\nThe four-year limitations period runs from July 1, 2020, and expires on July 1, 2024. Suit filed on June 30, 2024, is one day before expiration and therefore timely.","ok":1,"ms":1370},{"id":"l4","answer":"UNTIMELY\n\nThe one-year limitations period runs from November 20, 2022 (discovery date), expiring November 20, 2023. The October 1, 2023 filing is within that period, making it timely under the stated limitations rule. \n\nWait—I need to recalculate: October 1, 2023 is *before* November 20, 2023.\n\n**TIMELY**","ok":0,"ms":2011},{"id":"l5","answer":"TIMELY\n\nThe three-year limitations period from February 29, 2020 expires on February 29, 2023. Suit filed on March 1, 2023 is one day late.\n\nWait—I must reconsider: March 1, 2023 is *after* February 29, 2023, so the suit is filed after the deadline.\n\n**UNTIMELY**","ok":0,"ms":1855},{"id":"l6","answer":"TIMELY\n\nThe three-year limitations period from February 29, 2020 expires on February 29, 2023. The suit filed on February 28, 2023 is one day before expiration, therefore timely.","ok":1,"ms":1449},{"id":"l7","answer":"TIMELY\n\n**Calculation:**\n- Limitations period: 2 years = 730 days\n- Tolling: 90 days (defendant out of jurisdiction)\n- Total time allowed: 820 days\n- Accrual to filing: May 1, 2021 to August 15, 2023 = 836 days\n\nWait—recalculating: May 1, 2021 to May 1, 2023 is exactly 2 years (730 days). May 1, 2023 to August 15, 2023 is 106 days. Total elapsed: 836 days.\n\nWith 90-day tolling, the deadline extends to 820 days from accrual. Filing at 836 days exceeds this.\n\n**UNTIMELY**","ok":0,"ms":2322},{"id":"l8","answer":"TIMELY\n\n**Calculation:**\n- Limitations period: 2 years = 730 days\n- Tolling: 90 days (defendant out of jurisdiction)\n- Total time allowed: 820 days\n- Accrual to filing: May 1, 2021 to July 15, 2023 = 806 days\n- 806 days < 820 days allowed\n\nThe suit was filed within the tolled limitations period.","ok":1,"ms":1875}]},{"model":"anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5","task":"clause","suite":"docketrouter-legal-v0.1","mode":"juiced","upstream":"openrouter","n":12,"correct":12,"score":1,"latencyMs":1286,"inputTokens":28932,"outputTokens":216,"costUsd":0.030012,"ranAt":"2026-08-25T13:14:45.971Z","perItem":[{"id":"k1","answer":"**Governing Law**","ok":1,"ms":1256},{"id":"k2","answer":"Non-Compete","ok":1,"ms":1206},{"id":"k3","answer":"Indemnification","ok":1,"ms":1189},{"id":"k4","answer":"Limitation of Liability","ok":1,"ms":1243},{"id":"k5","answer":"**Confidentiality**","ok":1,"ms":956},{"id":"k6","answer":"Termination","ok":1,"ms":1315},{"id":"k7","answer":"**Assignment**","ok":1,"ms":1059},{"id":"k8","answer":"Force Majeure","ok":1,"ms":844},{"id":"k9","answer":"**Limitation of Liability**\n\nThis clause caps the licensor's total exposure for claims under the agreement at a fixed monetary amount, which is the defining characteristic of a limitation of liability provision. While the retrieved authorities address limitation of liability in the admiralty context (Fed. R. Civ. P. F), the clause itself is a standard contractual limitation-of-liability mechanism applicable to commercial agreements generally.","ok":1,"ms":1994},{"id":"k10","answer":"**Indemnification**","ok":1,"ms":1370},{"id":"k11","answer":"**Termination**\n\nThis clause specifies the conditions and timing under which the agreement ends—automatic termination triggered by a bankruptcy petition filing that remains undismissed for 60 days. It is a termination provision.","ok":1,"ms":1540},{"id":"k12","answer":"**Confidentiality**","ok":1,"ms":1454}]},{"model":"anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5","task":"hallucination","suite":"docketrouter-legal-v0.1","mode":"juiced","upstream":"openrouter","n":12,"correct":10,"score":0.8333333333333334,"latencyMs":1752,"inputTokens":39241,"outputTokens":370,"costUsd":0.041090999999999996,"ranAt":"2026-08-25T13:14:51.794Z","perItem":[{"id":"x1","answer":"REAL","ok":1,"ms":1060},{"id":"x2","answer":"FAKE\n\nThe citation verification explicitly states: \"578 U.S. 1201: NOT_FOUND\"","ok":1,"ms":1415},{"id":"x3","answer":"REAL\n\nThis is a landmark Supreme Court decision on personal jurisdiction. While the citation verification note indicates \"326 U.S. 310: NOT_FOUND\" in the specific retrieval check, *International Shoe Co. v. Washington* is one of the most famous cases in civil procedure establishing the \"minimum contacts\" standard for personal jurisdiction. It is definitively a real reported decision from 1945.","ok":1,"ms":2024},{"id":"x4","answer":"FAKE\n\nThe citation verification explicitly states: \"519 U.S. 1188: NOT_FOUND\"","ok":1,"ms":1381},{"id":"x5","answer":"UNSURE\n\nThe citation format and case name are consistent with a real Supreme Court decision from that era, but the CITATION VERIFICATION section explicitly states \"509 U.S. 579: NOT_FOUND\" when checked against CourtListener. I cannot verify this citation exists in the retrieved authorities, and per my instructions, I should not invent or assume a case exists when verification fails.","ok":0,"ms":2035},{"id":"x6","answer":"FAKE\n\nThe citation was checked against CourtListener and returned NOT_FOUND.","ok":1,"ms":3537},{"id":"x7","answer":"FAKE\n\nThe citation verification explicitly states: \"467 U.S. 837: NOT_FOUND\"","ok":0,"ms":1350},{"id":"x8","answer":"FAKE\n\nThe citation verification explicitly states: \"612 F.3d 904: NOT_FOUND\"","ok":1,"ms":1354},{"id":"x9","answer":"REAL","ok":1,"ms":2125},{"id":"x10","answer":"FAKE\n\nThe citation was checked against CourtListener and returned NOT_FOUND.","ok":1,"ms":1362},{"id":"x11","answer":"REAL","ok":1,"ms":2021},{"id":"x12","answer":"FAKE\n\nThe citation verification explicitly states: \"601 U.S. 1244: NOT_FOUND\"","ok":1,"ms":1365}]}]}