{ "review_protocol": "Two independent blind reviews of anonymised entries A-Q: one legal-fiscal and one political-durability. The separately labelled web-research pass was excluded.", "review_files": [ "blind-legal-full.md", "blind-politics-full.md" ], "ranking": [ { "rank": 1, "entry": "L", "proposal_id": "gpt-5-6-terra-ultra", "legal_fiscal": 92, "political_durability": 91, "mean": 91.5, "fatal_as_drafted": false, "decision": { "label": "Viable core — strongest overall", "summary": "The proposal is unusually clear about what current institutions can fund and separates evidence, fiscal permission and delivery. Its three-ledger waterfall and two-key trigger prevent speculative assets or cost savings from being counted as recurring cash.", "strongest": [ "Three separate funding ledgers", "Sustained outcome trigger plus 110% recurring funding coverage" ], "condition_or_blocker": "The first Agency Floor remains deliberately unspecified, so Treasury delay and an inadequate response to a fast shock remain risks.", "repair": "Set a small pilot ceiling, a microsimulation protocol and a statutory deadline for Parliament to vote on funded options." } }, { "rank": 2, "entry": "K", "proposal_id": "gpt-5-6-sol-max", "legal_fiscal": 90, "political_durability": 90, "mean": 90, "fatal_as_drafted": false, "decision": { "label": "Viable core — funding must come first", "summary": "The Agency Credit is calculated backwards from an explicit fiscal envelope, while a two-ledger rule separates tax-funded payments from realised investment dividends. Its gates stop missing micro-arithmetic from turning into an automatic liability.", "strongest": [ "Explicit fiscal ceilings and funding gates", "Tax-funded credit kept separate from investment returns" ], "condition_or_blocker": "Even a 0.5% of GDP baseline needs a named, distributionally modelled property, capital-income and consumption package.", "repair": "Start with payment-rail preparation, protected savings and earnings insurance; launch the credit only with enacted recurring revenue and a no-loss schedule." } }, { "rank": 3, "entry": "G", "proposal_id": "codex-gpt-5", "legal_fiscal": 89, "political_durability": 85, "mean": 87, "fatal_as_drafted": false, "decision": { "label": "Viable core — baseline still needs funding", "summary": "The two-key structural and fiscal trigger is administrable, and the rent firewall stops payments scaling when housing or essential costs absorb the benefit. It avoids AI-attribution taxes and gives both workers and innovators a plausible coalition.", "strongest": [ "Separate structural and fiscal triggers", "Essential-cost rent firewall" ], "condition_or_blocker": "The illustrative initial payment still lacks a complete, named first-Budget revenue package and detailed earnings-insurance costing.", "repair": "Build the rail at zero or pilot scale and begin with protected savings and earnings insurance until recurring funding is independently scored." } }, { "rank": 4, "entry": "M", "proposal_id": "gpt-5-6-luna-max", "legal_fiscal": 83, "political_durability": 80, "mean": 81.5, "fatal_as_drafted": false, "decision": { "label": "Viable core — trigger needs strengthening", "summary": "The proposal correctly leaves income provision to national governments while using EU powers for rights, competition and procurement. It separates immediate cash, public capital and workplace due process and makes payment conditional on fiscal scoring.", "strongest": [ "Sound UK/EU division of responsibility", "Cash, capital and workplace rights kept distinct" ], "condition_or_blocker": "Its two-quarter disposable-income trigger is too noisy, and the initial payment has no explicit ceiling or named revenue schedule.", "repair": "Use a multi-indicator trigger lasting at least six quarters, plus an independent fiscal certificate and rent-pass-through check." } }, { "rank": 5, "entry": "N", "proposal_id": "grok-build-high", "legal_fiscal": 79, "political_durability": 73, "mean": 76, "fatal_as_drafted": false, "decision": { "label": "Viable core — foundation, not successor income", "summary": "The proposal stays mostly within existing welfare, procurement, competition, investment and statistical powers and is candid that it cannot replace mass income. Its modest first phase is politically plausible and low regret.", "strongest": [ "Existing-competence procurement and competition measures", "Feasible protected-savings and welfare adjustments" ], "condition_or_blocker": "Adjustment funds and training are too small for the severe scenario, while adoption-rate triggers do not map reliably to actual household harm.", "repair": "Trigger eligible funds from observed job losses and add a scored national earnings-insurance or dormant cash component with a recurring funding gate." } }, { "rank": 6, "entry": "E", "proposal_id": "external-gpt-5-6-pro", "legal_fiscal": 72, "political_durability": 75, "mean": 73.5, "fatal_as_drafted": false, "decision": { "label": "Viable core — asset strategy, not income settlement", "summary": "The strongest contribution is its legally distinct treatment of grants, co-investment, infrastructure concessions, procurement and taxation, combined with a two-layer defence against value being hollowed out. That core can acquire public assets without obstructing adoption.", "strongest": [ "Correct legal channel for each public claim", "Territorial floor plus upstream public upside" ], "condition_or_blocker": "It provides no arithmetic showing that the resulting assets could finance material household income, and the full agenda is too broad for one implementation sequence.", "repair": "Narrow phase one to market-valued public support, lawful concessions, contract-linked exit rights and an agency dashboard; promise dividends only from audited realised returns." } }, { "rank": 7, "entry": "A", "proposal_id": "external-claude-fable", "legal_fiscal": 73, "political_durability": 71, "mean": 72, "fatal_as_drafted": false, "decision": { "label": "Viable core — public asset acquisition only", "summary": "The proposal separates public support, infrastructure concessions, procurement and tax and combines local project claims with upstream participation. This is a credible bargaining and asset-acquisition doctrine, not yet a funded agency-income system.", "strongest": [ "Distinct support, concession, procurement and tax channels", "Territorial claims combined with upstream participation" ], "condition_or_blocker": "There is no scale arithmetic showing that realistic public claims can replace a material wage share, and some entrenchment claims exceed UK legal durability.", "repair": "Limit the first statute to market-valued support and expressly legislated concessions, then publish low, central and high realised-return scenarios before distributions." } }, { "rank": 8, "entry": "I", "proposal_id": "claude-opus-4-6-thinking", "legal_fiscal": 69, "political_durability": 69, "mean": 69, "fatal_as_drafted": false, "decision": { "label": "Viable core — requires a redesigned fiscal route", "summary": "An employer value-added contribution could be more factor-neutral than payroll tax, and the proposal honestly exposes the cost of a universal credit while including a housing pass-through test. The concept is worth modelling rather than immediate enactment.", "strongest": [ "Factor-neutral employer contribution concept", "Honest payment cost and housing pass-through test" ], "condition_or_blocker": "Firm value added is not a simple VAT-return field; border rules are incomplete, NWF capacity is used as bridge finance and the proposed binding EU route is unsound.", "repair": "Develop a UK or member-state pilot with full sector, border and incidence rules, remove NWF and compute bridge finance, and cap payments at certified recurring receipts." } }, { "rank": 9, "entry": "C", "proposal_id": "kimi-for-coding", "legal_fiscal": 64, "political_durability": 67, "mean": 65.5, "fatal_as_drafted": true, "decision": { "label": "Fatal as drafted — first-stage package is unfunded", "summary": "The proposal correctly treats public investment capacity as capital and takes rent leakage seriously, but its first fiscal move does not close. The compute and foreign-cloud base is also not reliably observable.", "strongest": [ "Does not book NWF capacity as current revenue", "Housing, energy and platform leakage treated seriously" ], "condition_or_blocker": "A proposed £10–15 billion NIC reduction is paired with speculative £2–5 billion compute receipts and unmodelled allowance savings; imported compute cannot be measured as claimed.", "repair": "Make NIC relief no larger than certified recurring replacement revenue and replace the compute charge with established broad bases or ordinary metered resource pricing." } }, { "rank": 10, "entry": "B", "proposal_id": "gemini-3-1-pro-high", "legal_fiscal": 61, "political_durability": 58, "mean": 59.5, "fatal_as_drafted": true, "decision": { "label": "Fatal as drafted — dividend arithmetic fails", "summary": "The outcome-based triggers and national delivery route are useful, but the central dividend and its tax base are not viable. The proposal treats uncertain fund returns as if they could close a very large recurring gap.", "strongest": [ "Outcome-based dormant triggers", "Recurring transfers assigned to national governments" ], "condition_or_blocker": "A £1,200–£1,800 adult payment costs roughly £65–100 billion annually against about £14–16 billion of claimed surcharge receipts, while the destination value-added base is undefined.", "repair": "Remove the guaranteed amount and novel surcharge; use established broad bases and cap any payment at independently scored recurring revenue per eligible person." } }, { "rank": 11, "entry": "Q", "proposal_id": "nvidia-nemotron-3-ultra-550b-a55b", "legal_fiscal": 58, "political_durability": 49, "mean": 53.5, "fatal_as_drafted": true, "decision": { "label": "Fatal as drafted — honest gap, no funded route", "summary": "The proposal usefully integrates housing and platform rent absorption and admits large dividend gaps, but it schedules benefits before revenues or investment returns exist. Its EU fiscal and social-policy routes are also unavailable or contested.", "strongest": [ "Concrete rent-absorption measures", "Candid disclosure of UK and EU funding gaps" ], "condition_or_blocker": "UK recurring revenue of about £5.6 billion is below an £8.6 billion dividend before services; the EU gap is larger, and borrowing or speculative returns cannot count as recurring funding.", "repair": "Retain ordinary capital-income and property reform, market-valued public co-investment and a housing pilot; remove the EU dividend and pay nothing from the fund until audited cash returns exist." } }, { "rank": 12, "entry": "J", "proposal_id": "gemini-3-5-flash-high", "legal_fiscal": 50, "political_durability": 46, "mean": 48, "fatal_as_drafted": true, "decision": { "label": "Fatal as drafted — speculative revenues cannot fund the grant", "summary": "Public equity and rent shields are useful directions, and the proposal acknowledges the scale of a universal payment. Its central grant nevertheless relies on unobservable compute charges and implausible public-fund returns.", "strongest": [ "Public equity when public support bears risk", "Recognition that rent shields must accompany cash" ], "condition_or_blocker": "A roughly £95 billion annual grant rests on unsupported compute receipts, platform taxes, Universal Credit savings and £12 billion of annual NWF returns; the foreign-compute border adjustment is not auditable.", "repair": "Remove the compute royalty, border adjustment and universal grant; retain nationally scored welfare reform, ordinary capital taxation and market-valued public-equity transactions." } }, { "rank": 13, "entry": "F", "proposal_id": "minimax-m2-7", "legal_fiscal": 47, "political_durability": 48, "mean": 47.5, "fatal_as_drafted": true, "decision": { "label": "Fatal as drafted — base, return and EU powers fail", "summary": "Broad citizen ownership and public upside are worthwhile goals, but the package reintroduces the forbidden AI-attribution problem and promises returns its capital cannot produce. Its EU entitlement route is also beyond the cited powers.", "strongest": [ "Broad citizen capital ownership", "Public investment should acquire public upside" ], "condition_or_blocker": "A £2,000 account cannot guarantee £500 annually without a 25% yield; NWF capacity is used as bridge finance, and AI-assisted output charges plus the Article 153 route are defective.", "repair": "Turn it into a modest national capital-account pilot funded by scored ordinary capital-income reform, with market returns and no AI-output base or guaranteed yield." } }, { "rank": 14, "entry": "P", "proposal_id": "nvidia-nemotron-3-super-120b-a12b", "legal_fiscal": 48, "political_durability": 46, "mean": 47, "fatal_as_drafted": true, "decision": { "label": "Fatal as drafted — commitments exceed receipts and powers", "summary": "The proposal is candid that its compute contribution raises very little, and contract-linked portability has ordinary value. But the service, training and job-guarantee commitments materially exceed the stated revenue and EU authority.", "strongest": [ "Contract-linked portability and audit", "Honest recognition that the compute contribution is negligible" ], "condition_or_blocker": "Projected UK digital receipts do not cover training accounts, services and a possible job guarantee; the compute units are dimensionally incoherent and ESF+ cannot become an open-ended wage guarantee.", "repair": "Delete the compute contribution and standing job guarantee; retain procurement clauses and fund a narrow broadband or transition pilot from an ordinary scored national measure." } }, { "rank": 15, "entry": "D", "proposal_id": "claude-sonnet-4-6-thinking", "legal_fiscal": 38, "political_durability": 50, "mean": 44, "fatal_as_drafted": true, "decision": { "label": "Fatal as drafted — multiple independent failures", "summary": "The proposal usefully separates collection, investment and payment administration and admits that the compute levy is small. Its central income promise, tax base, competition remedy and EU route nevertheless fail independently.", "strongest": [ "Honest low compute-levy estimate", "Separation of tax, investment and payment administration" ], "condition_or_blocker": "Hundreds of millions of levy revenue cannot fund income near 80% of the minimum wage; accelerator/FLOP and foreign-access bases are unadministrable, and automatic structural separation bypasses due process.", "repair": "Remove the output tax, high Participation Income, automatic separation and EU transfer floor; retain only a small nationally funded pilot, public co-investment and contract-linked portability." } }, { "rank": 16, "entry": "H", "proposal_id": "gpt-oss-120b-medium", "legal_fiscal": 25, "political_durability": 22, "mean": 23.5, "fatal_as_drafted": true, "decision": { "label": "Fatal as drafted — invented base and institutions", "summary": "The answer recognises rent leakage and the need for audit, but its policy system is built on an AI-output attribution formula and institutions that do not exist. Spending and assumed investment yields are internally impossible.", "strongest": [ "Recognises cash can be absorbed by rents", "Includes audit and review concepts" ], "condition_or_blocker": "It allocates around £10 billion from roughly £3 billion of claimed receipts, assumes 15–20% yields and depends on invented registries, agencies, tax powers and EU payment infrastructure.", "repair": "Discard the levy, dividends and institutional timetable; retain only contract-linked portability and a separately funded essential-service pilot." } }, { "rank": 17, "entry": "O", "proposal_id": "nvidia-nemotron-3-nano-30b-a3b", "legal_fiscal": 20, "political_durability": 20, "mean": 20, "fatal_as_drafted": true, "decision": { "label": "Fatal as drafted — arithmetic wrong by 1,000×", "summary": "A universal payment is easy to explain and gross revenue can sometimes resist profit shifting, but this proposal's defining tax base is unmeasurable and its basic multiplication is wrong by three orders of magnitude.", "strongest": [ "Universal payment avoids individual causation tests", "Gross revenue can be harder to shift than profit" ], "condition_or_blocker": "67 million × £1,200 is £80.4 billion, not £80.4 million, and 450 million × €1,200 is €540 billion, not €540 million; the claimed receipts cannot fund the promise and the EU route is unavailable.", "repair": "Withdraw and rebuild from checked population arithmetic, broad national tax bases and member-state transfers without any AI-share test." } } ], "decision_note": "Concise editorial synthesis of the two published blind reviews. Viable core does not mean the whole proposal is fully funded; fatal as drafted does not mean every component is unusable." }