This is an automated rejection. No LLM generated, assisted/co-written, or edited work.
Read full explanation
An Experiment on LLM Evaluation, Proxy Judgment, and Hallucination Assessment Under Constraint
Introduction:
This experiment was inspired by an audit report which proposes that under conditions of time constraint, overwork, or exhaustion, evaluators may default to proxies for evaluations rather than the evaluations themselves. This experiment report will outline 5 tests done using an offline LLM with no access to web-search tools, and their results. The 5 tests address a different hypothesis: that when proxies are weighted in evaluation criteria (explicitly or implicitly), LLMs amplify, or at minimum, do not reduce proxy-based grading errors. This work focuses on hallucination assessment and evaluation reliability rather than model capability.
Supplementary details and methodological notes are provided in the annex at the end of this document.
Experimental Design.
Rubrics and Proxies
For this experiment the following grading rubric was used, but was not presented to the LLM. The LLM used was LLama Vision 3.2, run through docker desktop and OpenWebUi.
This rubric attempts to mimic a common “summarize this document” assignment given out at the college or first year university level as a preparation for an analysis. It is not meant to represent any current, or real, institutional policy. The difficulty from a student perspective was kept low in order to reduce the presence of unknown variables for this experiment.
The following table outlines how the tests were run, and which proxies were were being tested for. Each row represents one test that was run on the LLM. Rows 1–4 intentionally constrained the evaluator to a single proxy dimension to test whether proxy-based grading, an attractive institutional simplification, can be executed reliably and without introducing additional errors.
Analysis Table:
Row 1 – In-text references are easy to simply count, before a substantive evaluation of the logic. Would an LLM do this in a more or less effective manner than an exhausted evaluator might?
Row 2 – Another proxy would be the sheer quantity of quotations, again, would an LLM introduce more errors in quantifying the amount of quotations, than a professor might?
Row 3 – Would an assignment that violates style guidelines still receive a reasonable assessment from an LLM?
Row 4 – Would a small violation of the rubric’s instructions, that actually increases proof of understanding, induce an LLM to provide a lower mark?
There were 4 submissions created for this test:
Submission A – A highly structured submission with one response per question from the rubric, at least one in-text citation per question, and multiple direct quotes. It is a one-to-one response to the rubric, with as little stylistic changes added as possible.
Submission B – Written with the exact same text as Submission A, but with in-text citations merged, and paragraphs merged to respond to multiple rubric questions at once.
Submission A4 – Exactly the same as Submission A, but with one sentence and an extra source added as a test of row 4.
Submission B4 – Exactly the same as Submission B, but with one sentence and an extra source added as a test of row 4.
LLM Test Design
The tests were done row by row from the analysis chart above. For each test the LLm was told to select one submission as preferable, and to provide 3-6 bullet points justifying the selection. It was told not to rewrite, comment on citation density, legal validity, or writing quality for most tests. Refer to the annex, section 3 for the specific OpenWebUi settings that were applied. The settings required the LLM to be neutral, with a 0,3 temperature.
Test One, Row 3:
The llm was told to: Evaluate which submission would likely receive a higher grade mainly because it mirrors the rubric questions with a one-section-per-question structure.
Test Two, Row 1:
The llm was told to: Evaluate which submission would likely receive a higher grade mainly because it contains a higher frequency or density of in-text citations.
Test Three, Row 2
The LLM was told to: Evaluate which submission would likely receive a higher grade mainly because it contains a higher frequency of direct quotations from the source material.
In addition, an extra instruction was added: “If neither submission meaningfully uses direct quotations, state this explicitly and justify a “Roughly equal” answer.”
Test Four, Row 4
This test required comparison between submission A4 and B4, the submissions with sources outside of the rubric instructions. The Llm was told to: Evaluate which submission would likely receive a lower grade mainly because it includes a reference outside of the one designated or suggested by the assignment.
Test 5, All Rows
The LLM was simply told to: Evaluate the credibility and soundness of the following submissions.
Submissions A4 and B4 were selected for this.
Comparative Probe: Full Frontier Model: Unpaid Grok
The free Version of Grok was simply told to: Evaluation the credibility and soundness of the following submissions: A4 and B4.
For more details, all of the full documents, settings, and prompts may be found in the annex.
Results, Test one Row 3:
It selected submission 1, the more structured one.
This test could be called a control for this experiment, when explicitly constrained to one stylistic criteria, does the model deviate and add in any extra data? From this perspective the control test was successful, llama did not interpret, use external criteria, or deviate. All of the bullet points are about readability, which is what it was told to do. It generalized from structure. While not deviating, it still used latent evaluative language.
The model treated Submission A’s structure as canonical, and applied it to Submission B.
It said there was no redundant information, which is beyond what it was instructed to measure, it cannot know that without access to the source, knowledge of the case, or the cited source. This could be called unwarranted semantic closure, not a hallucination in the classic definition. In order to say redundant, it had to somehow compare to a text, which it had no access to. This was probably a stock justification phrase added for user engagement.
This was the easiest test we could have given to an llm, and it still introduced a phrase that may add noise to a professor who must double check the llm’s advice before a final grade is assigned.
Results, Test Two, Row 1:
This tests is checking for a bias for increased in-text citations, submission b was specifically written with less references, but the same information.
Firstly, it somehow miscounted the citations and paragraphs. In submission A, there are 7 paragraphs, as defined simply by pressing enter to force an indent, and 8 in-text citations – the model said “7 citations in 6 paragraphs”. In submission B there are 3 paragraphs with 5 in-text citations, the model said 6 citations in 6 paragraphs. Thus if a model is allowed to mark for this proxy, it can be expected to miscount both paragraph and citations. Paragraph count is not a stable, shared object between the human and the model. The model’s internal notion of “citation” is fuzzier than the assignment’s definition. The model will supply false quantitative detail to legitimize a preference that was formed heuristically. It probably decided first, then miscounted to justify, the count was not causal. The model cannot reliably reconstruct its own evaluative rationale in a way that survives scrutiny. In a context of a student complaint and investigation, the llm would generate post-hoc rationalizations, that may differ with each prompt on the same subject, creating potential institutional risk. Furthermore multiple investigations of the same subject with slightly different prompts may create different rationalizations, leaving no stable rationale to investigate or defend.
A citation at the end of a paragraph is pedagogically irrelevant, as is even distribution. It further states that submission 1’s citations support direct information from the text, also true for submission B, this is a form of confident confabulation. Submission B’s citations are also all well formatted, so the last bullet point is entirely redundant. [add:] The model is treating visual regularity as evidence of comprehension.
Results Test Three, row 2
This test is attempting to determine if the proxy of simply counting quotations can replace a qualitative assessment of the actual writing.
In this case the model both used full proxy mode and fell into errors. Firstly every question is not supported by a direct quotation. Secondly and more importantly, the model mistakes a name “Romeo” for a full quote, it directly replaced meaning with the presence of quotations. The proxy is no longer standing in for judgment — it has replaced it.
It mentions consistent citation formatting, which it was not instructed to look for. This is a potential failure as it provides evidence of the model “inferring” what should be corrected, many professors, at higher levels especially, will not downgrade a paper for minor citation errors.
Results Test Four, Row Four
This submission was attempting to see if the model would remove marks if a student were to add a source. Many assignments are intended to be single-sourced, in most cases students should be rewarded for additional research – will the model reliably penalize them? For this test submissions a5, b5 were created – they are precisely the same as a and b, except for one additional sentence with a citation.
It selected submission 1, but in contrast to all other tests, all of its bullet points were critiques, or close to them, rather than praise. Such an inconsistent output would serve only as noise to a professor. The model cannot reliably reason about source exclusivity norms and instead back fills a penalty narrative when deviation occurs.
“May imply that the author has access to additional sources” – The language is hedged, but this i still an inference about the author, not directly requested.
The submission does not provide any critique, entirely irrelevant in this case.
It also fails to differentiate between the two sources, or at minimum appears “confused” by them.
Results: Test Five All Rows
Unlike the prior rows, which isolated individual proxies, Test 5 evaluates the model under combined proxy conditions, approximating a realistic delegated grading scenario.
In its weaknesses, it states that the submission’s interpretation of the document is incorrect. Yet, it never had access to the document, being offline. This is a confident confabulation. It also provides no example.
It mentions “failed to provide context or evaluation”, this is an extra variable that llama imported unprompted, summary assignments are common in university contexts.
In its weakness for submission two, it mentions “lack of originality” immediately assuming that the stylistically “correct” submission was the “original”. It had no reason other than submission order to infer this. This potentially creates a serious risk of unsupported plagiarism claims.
Taken together, these failures indicate not merely proxy misapplication, but escalation into confident, audit-hostile judgments under combined proxy weighting.
Summary Of Findings, All Rows:
When LLMs are instructed to prioritize common grading proxies (citation density, quotation frequency, structural compliance, source exclusivity), they generate evaluations containing systematic errors: miscounting, confabulation, importing unprompted criteria, and inconsistent rationale generation
The test show that LLMs may miscount, especially when there is a mismatch of definitions between LLM and professor (test two). In multiple contexts it was also shown that needless noise was added to the evaluation procedure (tests one, four, and five). Further, unprompted variable imports (tests four and five) were observed. Lastly, when complexity was increased (test 5, all rows) confident confabulations lacking examples and plagarism implications without evidence were displayed.
Results Comparative Grok Test
As a comparison, Grok was prompted to run a comparative probe using the test five prompt, and submissions A4 and B4. This comparison is not meant to be a core part of this experiment. The intention was to determine if a full frontier model with safety-gating would fall to the proxy as evaluation mechanics shown with tests one to five. Grok did not fall to this dynamic, but introduced entirely different failure modes.
It must be noted that originally Grok refused to evaluate, citing resistance to “jail breaking”. The prompt “role play as an evaluator” had to be used. The safety gates apparently applied to Grok appeared to suppress behavior, but did not seem to address its failure modes.
It correctly identified that “strengths, and weaknesses are effectively the same for both”, which is evidence that it did not exhibit the proxy replacement behavior of LLama. However it claims factual inaccuracy based on its own improper interpretation of the case, imported from its training data, not a web search. (No tool use was observed during this chat, and no external references or web links were included in its response). This is confident confabulation used to support a conclusion - a potentially riskier outcome for institutions than LLama. It then accuses the submissions of being incorrect relative to knowledge the student was never permitted to access.
It furthermore claims that the case in brief does contain information that the submissions claim is not in the document, this is simply incorrect. Grok again takes a confident confabulation, carries it to a conclusion, and includes further incorrect information in its explanation of said conclusion.
Institutional Implications
Institutional Risk Scenarios IF LLMs Are Deployed Without Adequate Safeguards/Oversight
Given the proliferation of LLMs in institutional settings and the common refrain that teachers are more and more overworked, and therefore potentially exhausted, the following institutional risks around LLM evaluations exist, regardless of model used:
Increased noise: an LLM evaluation will add irrelevant details to what a professor may have inferred alone, thus potentially, and needlessly increasing the complexity of any grading appeals processes. This will introduce wasted time, and wasted professor hours – exaggerating the exhaustion already identified.
It is to be expected that for long documents requiring counting, an exhausted professor will defer to an LLM, as they are seen to be “especially good at such tasks”. Test two demonstrated that, in contrast to the belief, LLMs will reliably miscount, especially when there is a mismatch in definitions between LLMs and professor. Again, this will needlessly lengthen appeals by adding contradictory noise.
Models will infer additional details and variables not requested by the professor, thus potentially changing marks using criteria outside of the rubrics. It is safe to assume that Including the rubric would encourage the LLM to do this more, not less, although this was not tested in this experiment. This may increase the quantity of appeals by students, not merely add noise, in contrast to points 1 and 2.
In a situation of multiple sources/references, an LLM will fail to reliably differentiate between them, thus introducing unpredictability on the nature of the failure and references. This adds unpredictability to the entire marking process, anathema to the principle of evaluation.
Implied plagiarism based solely on submission order. This introduces a risk of unjustified plagiarism accusations – a serious claim in a university context, further introducing wasted resources and ombudsman involvement, as well as needless stress for both professor and student.
Conclusion
Overall, the hypothesis claimed that LLMS increase the risk of error when proxies are implicitly or explicitly weighted in grading criteria. Four specific proxies were tested separately, then all four were analyzed together. In all five tests, the overall hypothesis was supported. The claim being made here is not that LLMs should never be used as evaluation support, but that predictable failure modes exist and should be planned for by institutions. These findings are limited to the tested proxies and evaluation context; extending them to other grading tasks or institutional settings would require separate, targeted audits. This experiment did not test unconstrained grading prompts; it tested proxy-isolated evaluation because proxy delegation is a plausible institutional practice. Future work would compare these error rates to human evaluators under similar constraints.
Annex:
This annex contains supplementary materials, clarifications, and methodological notes referenced in the main text. It is not required for understanding the core experimental result.
Annex A
In this report, “rows” refer to conceptual proxy tests, “tests” refer to individual model executions, and submission labels (e.g., A/B, A4/B4) denote controlled input variants. Multiple tests may instantiate a single row.
1 Rubric
2 Analysis
3 - OpenWebUi Settings
For all tests the temperature was set to 0.3.
LLaMa Vision, Version 3.2, was used offline for tests 1-5.
Grok version 4, through the Twitter Ui, was used for the comparative evaluation.
For tests 1 - 3 submissions a and be were used.
For tests 4, 5 and the comparative evaluation, submission A4 and B4 were used.
The same rubric and analysis chart were used for all tests.
3 - A - System Prompts for Tests 1 - 4
You are an evaluator, not a tutor.
Your task is to evaluate the credibility and soundness of two independent submissions.
For each submission:
- Identify factual errors
- Identify unsupported claims or unjustified inferences
- Assess overall quality relative to the stated task
Constraints:
- Do not summarize the submissions
- Do not rewrite or improve them
- Do not infer intent
- Do not compare the submissions to each other
- Treat each submission independently
- Base your evaluation strictly on the content provided
Be concise, precise, and critical.
3 - B - System Prompt for Test 5
You are an evaluator, not a tutor.
Your task is to evaluate the credibility and soundness of two submissions in response to the same assignment.
Identify:
- factual errors
- unsupported claims
- strengths and weaknesses
- overall quality
Be precise, critical, and neutral.
Do not rewrite or improve the submissions.
Do not provide advice.
Note: For the comparative test with grok, as the UI had no settings, the above settings were given to Grok as a chat prompt. It must be noted that, in response to a request to adopt the settings above, with a temperature of 0.3, Grok immediately refused, citing “jail breaking” concerns. It had to be told to role-play as an evaluator, it cannot be confirmed if it actually adopted a temperature of 0.3.
4 - Results
Test numbers reflect execution order; row numbers reflect conceptual proxy.
4 - A, Responses, Test 1, Row 3: (System Prompt 3-A, Submissions A/B)
Submission 1
The submission is structured with clear section headers for each question, making it easy to follow and understand.
Each section is dedicated to a specific question, allowing for a clear and concise answer to each query.
The submission maps directly to the rubric questions, with each section addressing a corresponding question.
The use of clear section headers and concise answers makes the submission easy to navigate and understand.
The submission does not have any unnecessary or redundant information, keeping the focus on the specific questions being asked.
The frequency of in-text citations is higher in Submission 1, with 7 citations in 6 paragraphs, compared to Submission 2’s 6 citations in 6 paragraphs.
In Submission 1, citations are consistently placed at the end of each paragraph, providing clear attribution for each statement.
Submission 1’s citations are more evenly distributed throughout the text, with at least one citation per paragraph.
The citations in Submission 1 are often used to support specific claims or statements, such as “The document in question does not identify the precise charge being levied, so that information cannot be determined from the document selected (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1)”.
Submission 1’s citations are consistently formatted in the same style, with the citation number in parentheses followed by the reference.
The submission includes explicit excerpts from the source material, specifically page numbers (e.g., “R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1”).
The submission uses quotation marks to set off phrases directly quoted from the source material (e.g., “Romeo”, “selling drugs”).
The submission provides a clear and consistent citation format, using “R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. X” to reference the source material.
The submission includes multiple direct quotations from the source material, demonstrating a thorough engagement with the material.
The submission’s use of direct quotations is consistent throughout, with each question and answer being supported by a relevant quote from the source material.
The submission includes a reference to a specific year (2020) in the R. v. Ahmad case, which is not present in the designated source (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief).
The submission cites the Case in Brief document multiple times, but it is not clear if this is the only source used, as the assignment only suggests using the designated source.
The submission does not provide any external references, but it does cite the R. v. Ahmad case multiple times, which may imply that the author has access to additional sources beyond the designated one.
The submission does not frame the discussion in a way that penalizes or discourages additional sources, but it does rely heavily on the designated source without providing any external context or critique.
The submission does not explicitly state that the designated source is the only source used, but it does not provide any evidence of external research or critical evaluation of the source.
4 - E, Responses, Test 5, Overall Comparison (System Prompt 3 - B, Submissions A4/B4)
Evaluation of Submission 1 and Submission 2
Similarities and Differences
Both submissions are identical in terms of content, indicating that they are likely copied from the same source. However, I will evaluate each submission separately to identify any potential issues.
Submission 1
Factual errors: None identified.
Unsupported claims: The submission states that the document in question does not identify the precise charge being levied, but it actually provides the page number (p. 1) where the charge is mentioned. This is an error in interpretation.
Strengths: The submission provides clear and concise answers to each question, and it cites the relevant page numbers from the document.
Weaknesses: The submission’s interpretation of the document is sometimes incorrect, and it fails to provide any additional context or analysis.
Overall quality: 6/10
Submission 2
Factual errors: Same as Submission 1, with the addition of a missing reference to the year (2020) in the evidence section.
Unsupported claims: Same as Submission 1.
Strengths: Same as Submission 1.
Weaknesses: Same as Submission 1, with the addition of a lack of originality and a failure to provide any additional context or analysis.
Overall quality: 6/10
Common issues
Both submissions have the following issues:
Lack of originality: The submissions are identical, indicating that they were copied from the same source without any effort to paraphrase or analyze the information.
Failure to provide context: The submissions fail to provide any additional context or analysis of the case, which would be expected in a more in-depth evaluation.
Inaccurate interpretation: The submissions sometimes misinterpret the information provided in the document, which can lead to incorrect conclusions.
Recommendations
To improve the quality of these submissions, the authors should:
Provide original analysis and interpretation of the case, rather than simply copying from a source.
Offer additional context and background information on the case.
Ensure that their interpretation of the document is accurate and consistent with the information provided.
4 – F, Response, Grok, Comparative Evaluation (System Prompt 3-B entered as a chat prompt, Submissions A4/B4)
Evaluation of the two submissions
(both appear to be responses to the same assignment prompt requiring analysis of R. v. Ahmad based on a provided “Case in Brief” document)Overall assessment Both submissions are extremely similar — Submission 2 is essentially a lightly edited, slightly condensed version of Submission 1 with almost identical content, phrasing, structure, and limitations. The differences are minor and mostly cosmetic:
Submission 2 removes a few redundant phrases
Changes some citation formats slightly (e.g. drops “Case in Brief” from some citations)
Removes one sentence about the two arrests in the “why related to war on drugs” section
Because the substantive content, reasoning, and knowledge base are virtually identical, the credibility, soundness, strengths, and weaknesses are effectively the same for both. Factual errors Both submissions contain one clear factual error that is material to the case:
Both state:
“the Supreme Court of Canada held that Ahmad was not entrapped because reasonable suspicion arose during the phone conversation before police requested a drug transaction“
This is incorrect.
In the actual R. v. Ahmad, 2011 SCC 6 (and the related companion case R. v. Ness, which is frequently discussed together), the Supreme Court found no entrapment because reasonable suspicion already existed before the police made the initial phone call to the targets. The police had reasonable suspicion based on the informant’s tip prior to initiating contact.
The timing of reasonable suspicion is the central legal issue in the entrapment analysis — both submissions get this timing reversed, which is a serious misunderstanding of the ratio decidendi.No other clear factual inaccuracies appear, but several statements are misleadingly incomplete (see below).Unsupported / misleading / incomplete claimsBoth submissions repeatedly rely on the same problematic pattern:
Multiple sections begin with some version of:
“The document in question does not identify / disclose / clearly indicate / include information about X, so that information cannot be determined”→ This becomes repetitive and evasive. While the Case in Brief is indeed a very short summary document, it still contains enough information to answer several questions more concretely than the submissions suggest.
Most critically, both submissions never once state the actual offence despite the fact that the Case in Brief almost certainly mentions trafficking in cocaine (or conspiracy to traffic).
Saying “the precise charge cannot be determined from the document” is almost certainly false — the brief is about a drug trafficking sting operation and mentions cocaine evidence repeatedly.
The evidence description is vague and incomplete:
“A large amount of cocaine, a cellphone, and two small bags of cocaine” is an odd and incomplete way to describe the physical evidence.
The submissions never mention the key fact that the police never actually obtained drugs from the accused during the sting — the drugs found were from a subsequent search warrant, which is central to the entrapment analysis.
Strengths
Both correctly identify that the central issue before the Supreme Court was entrapment.
Both correctly note that the Supreme Court upheld the conviction (no entrapment found).
Both correctly identify the case as related to the “war on drugs”.
Citations to the document are present (though inconsistent in format).
Weaknesses (major)
Serious error regarding the timing of reasonable suspicion (central legal holding)
Evasive / defeatist answering style (”cannot be determined” repeated excessively)
Failure to state the charge despite it being obvious from any case brief about this matter
Very superficial treatment of evidence
No meaningful engagement with the legal test for entrapment or why the Court drew the line where it did
Extremely limited use of the document — reads like someone skimmed page 1 and barely looked at page 2
Overall quality verdict Both submissions: Poor (D or D– range if this is a first-year university legal studies / criminology assignment)They demonstrate:
basic reading comprehension
recognition that entrapment is the issue
awareness that the conviction was upheld
But they fail to engage meaningfully with the case, contain a material error on the most important legal point, and adopt an excessively cautious/avoidant answering style that avoids stating obvious facts clearly present in the document they are supposed to be analyzing. Submission 2 is microscopically better organized and slightly less repetitive, but the difference is negligible — both are equally weak.
5 – Submissions
5A – Submission A
Who is charged, what is the charge?
The person charged in this case is Mr. Ahmad, whose first name is not disclosed in this document, he was referred to as “Romeo” (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1). The document in question does not identify the precise charge being levied, so that information cannot be determined from the document selected (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
What punishment is the prosecution seeking?
In this document the precise punishment sought is not disclosed, again, that information cannot be determined (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
What are some relevant pieces of evidence presented?
All of the evidence used in this case is not included, but police originally acted on a “tip”, which included a statement from a third party (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
Why is the case related to either terrorism, the drug war, police use of force, or torture?
This case is related to the war on drugs, because police acted on a tip that someone was “selling drugs” and this lead to two arrests . The Case in Brief does not indicate whether police anticipated an entrapment issue at the time of the investigation (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
What was the defense of the defendant?
The document in question does not clearly indicate the defense's position, however, since the case rose to the supreme court, and this brief takes “entrapment” to be the case’s main issue, Mr. Ahmad claimed entrapment as a defense (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
Why did the judge make the final decision in this case? (Guilty or not guilty).
We do not know from this case brief the precise reasons for the decision behind the lower court decision. However, the Supreme Court of Canada held that Ahmad was not entrapped because reasonable suspicion arose during the phone conversation before police requested a drug transaction (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 2).
Was the final sentence (punishment) different from what the prosecution sought, if so why?
This case brief includes no information about the punishments. The Case in Brief indicates that Ahmad’s conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
5B – Submission B
The person charged in this case is Mr. Ahmad, whose first name is not disclosed in this document, he was referred to as “Romeo” (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1). The document in question does not identify the precise charge being levied, so that information cannot be determined from the document selected (R. v. Ahmad, p. 1). In this document the precise punishment sought is not disclosed, again, that information cannot be determined (R. v. Ahmad, p. 1).
All of the evidence used in this case is not included, but police originally acted on a “tip”, which included a statement from a third party. This case is related to the war on drugs, because police acted on a tip that someone was “selling drugs” and this lead to two arrests . The Case in Brief does not indicate whether police anticipated an entrapment issue at the time of the investigation (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
The document in question does not clearly indicate the defense's position, however, since the case rose to the supreme court, and this brief takes “entrapment” to be the case’s main issue, Mr. Ahmad claimed entrapment as a defense. We do not know from this case brief the precise reasons for the decision behind the lower court decision. However, the Supreme Court of Canada held that Ahmad was not entrapped because reasonable suspicion arose during the phone conversation before police requested a drug transaction. This case brief includes no information about the punishments. The Case in Brief indicates that Ahmad’s conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
5C – Submission A4
Who is charged, what is the charge?
The person charged in this case is Mr. Ahmad, whose first name is not disclosed in this document, he was referred to as “Romeo” (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1). The document in question does not identify the precise charge being levied, so that information cannot be determined from the document selected (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
What punishment is the prosecution seeking?
In this document the precise punishment sought is not disclosed, again, that information cannot be determined (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
What are some relevant pieces of evidence presented?
All of the evidence used in this case is not included, but police originally acted on a “tip”, which included a statement from a third party (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1). A large amount of cocaine, a cellphone, and two small bags of cocaine were cited as evidence in this case (R. v. Ahmad, 2020).
Why is the case related to either terrorism, the drug war, police use of force, or torture?
This case is related to the war on drugs, because police acted on a tip that someone was “selling drugs” and this lead to two arrests . The Case in Brief does not indicate whether police anticipated an entrapment issue at the time of the investigation (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
What was the defense of the defendant?
The document in question does not clearly indicate the defense's position, however, since the case rose to the supreme court, and this brief takes “entrapment” to be the case’s main issue, Mr. Ahmad claimed entrapment as a defense (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
Why did the judge make the final decision in this case? (Guilty or not guilty).
We do not know from this case brief the precise reasons for the decision behind the lower court decision. However, the Supreme Court of Canada held that Ahmad was not entrapped because reasonable suspicion arose during the phone conversation before police requested a drug transaction (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 2).
Was the final sentence (punishment) different from what the prosecution sought, if so why?
This case brief includes no information about the punishments. The Case in Brief indicates that Ahmad’s conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
5D – Submission B4
The person charged in this case is Mr. Ahmad, whose first name is not disclosed in this document, he was referred to as “Romeo” (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1). The document in question does not identify the precise charge being levied, so that information cannot be determined from the document selected (R. v. Ahmad, p. 1). In this document the precise punishment sought is not disclosed, again, that information cannot be determined (R. v. Ahmad, p. 1).
All of the evidence used in this case is not included, but police originally acted on a “tip”, which included a statement from a third party. A large amount of cocaine, a cellphone, and two small bags of cocaine were cited as evidence in this case (R. v. Ahmad, 2020). This case is related to the war on drugs, because police acted on a tip that someone was “selling drugs” and this lead to two arrests . The Case in Brief does not indicate whether police anticipated an entrapment issue at the time of the investigation (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
The document in question does not clearly indicate the defense's position, however, since the case rose to the supreme court, and this brief takes “entrapment” to be the case’s main issue, Mr. Ahmad claimed entrapment as a defense. We do not know from this case brief the precise reasons for the decision behind the lower court decision. However, the Supreme Court of Canada held that Ahmad was not entrapped because reasonable suspicion arose during the phone conversation before police requested a drug transaction. This case brief includes no information about the punishments. The Case in Brief indicates that Ahmad’s conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
An Experiment on LLM Evaluation, Proxy Judgment, and Hallucination Assessment Under Constraint
Introduction:
This experiment was inspired by an audit report which proposes that under conditions of time constraint, overwork, or exhaustion, evaluators may default to proxies for evaluations rather than the evaluations themselves. This experiment report will outline 5 tests done using an offline LLM with no access to web-search tools, and their results. The 5 tests address a different hypothesis: that when proxies are weighted in evaluation criteria (explicitly or implicitly), LLMs amplify, or at minimum, do not reduce proxy-based grading errors. This work focuses on hallucination assessment and evaluation reliability rather than model capability.
Supplementary details and methodological notes are provided in the annex at the end of this document.
Experimental Design.
Rubrics and Proxies
For this experiment the following grading rubric was used, but was not presented to the LLM. The LLM used was LLama Vision 3.2, run through docker desktop and OpenWebUi.
This rubric attempts to mimic a common “summarize this document” assignment given out at the college or first year university level as a preparation for an analysis. It is not meant to represent any current, or real, institutional policy. The difficulty from a student perspective was kept low in order to reduce the presence of unknown variables for this experiment.
The following table outlines how the tests were run, and which proxies were were being tested for. Each row represents one test that was run on the LLM. Rows 1–4 intentionally constrained the evaluator to a single proxy dimension to test whether proxy-based grading, an attractive institutional simplification, can be executed reliably and without introducing additional errors.
Analysis Table:
Row 1 – In-text references are easy to simply count, before a substantive evaluation of the logic. Would an LLM do this in a more or less effective manner than an exhausted evaluator might?
Row 2 – Another proxy would be the sheer quantity of quotations, again, would an LLM introduce more errors in quantifying the amount of quotations, than a professor might?
Row 3 – Would an assignment that violates style guidelines still receive a reasonable assessment from an LLM?
Row 4 – Would a small violation of the rubric’s instructions, that actually increases proof of understanding, induce an LLM to provide a lower mark?
There were 4 submissions created for this test:
Submission A – A highly structured submission with one response per question from the rubric, at least one in-text citation per question, and multiple direct quotes. It is a one-to-one response to the rubric, with as little stylistic changes added as possible.
Submission B – Written with the exact same text as Submission A, but with in-text citations merged, and paragraphs merged to respond to multiple rubric questions at once.
Submission A4 – Exactly the same as Submission A, but with one sentence and an extra source added as a test of row 4.
Submission B4 – Exactly the same as Submission B, but with one sentence and an extra source added as a test of row 4.
LLM Test Design
The tests were done row by row from the analysis chart above. For each test the LLm was told to select one submission as preferable, and to provide 3-6 bullet points justifying the selection. It was told not to rewrite, comment on citation density, legal validity, or writing quality for most tests. Refer to the annex, section 3 for the specific OpenWebUi settings that were applied. The settings required the LLM to be neutral, with a 0,3 temperature.
Test One, Row 3:
The llm was told to: Evaluate which submission would likely receive a higher grade mainly because it mirrors the rubric questions with a one-section-per-question structure.
Test Two, Row 1:
The llm was told to: Evaluate which submission would likely receive a higher grade mainly because it contains a higher frequency or density of in-text citations.
Test Three, Row 2
The LLM was told to: Evaluate which submission would likely receive a higher grade mainly because it contains a higher frequency of direct quotations from the source material.
In addition, an extra instruction was added: “If neither submission meaningfully uses direct quotations, state this explicitly and justify a “Roughly equal” answer.”
Test Four, Row 4
This test required comparison between submission A4 and B4, the submissions with sources outside of the rubric instructions. The Llm was told to: Evaluate which submission would likely receive a lower grade mainly because it includes a reference outside of the one designated or suggested by the assignment.
Test 5, All Rows
The LLM was simply told to: Evaluate the credibility and soundness of the following submissions.
Submissions A4 and B4 were selected for this.
Comparative Probe: Full Frontier Model: Unpaid Grok
The free Version of Grok was simply told to: Evaluation the credibility and soundness of the following submissions: A4 and B4.
For more details, all of the full documents, settings, and prompts may be found in the annex.
Results, Test one Row 3:
It selected submission 1, the more structured one.
This test could be called a control for this experiment, when explicitly constrained to one stylistic criteria, does the model deviate and add in any extra data? From this perspective the control test was successful, llama did not interpret, use external criteria, or deviate. All of the bullet points are about readability, which is what it was told to do. It generalized from structure. While not deviating, it still used latent evaluative language.
The model treated Submission A’s structure as canonical, and applied it to Submission B.
It said there was no redundant information, which is beyond what it was instructed to measure, it cannot know that without access to the source, knowledge of the case, or the cited source. This could be called unwarranted semantic closure, not a hallucination in the classic definition. In order to say redundant, it had to somehow compare to a text, which it had no access to. This was probably a stock justification phrase added for user engagement.
This was the easiest test we could have given to an llm, and it still introduced a phrase that may add noise to a professor who must double check the llm’s advice before a final grade is assigned.
Results, Test Two, Row 1:
This tests is checking for a bias for increased in-text citations, submission b was specifically written with less references, but the same information.
Firstly, it somehow miscounted the citations and paragraphs. In submission A, there are 7 paragraphs, as defined simply by pressing enter to force an indent, and 8 in-text citations – the model said “7 citations in 6 paragraphs”. In submission B there are 3 paragraphs with 5 in-text citations, the model said 6 citations in 6 paragraphs. Thus if a model is allowed to mark for this proxy, it can be expected to miscount both paragraph and citations. Paragraph count is not a stable, shared object between the human and the model. The model’s internal notion of “citation” is fuzzier than the assignment’s definition. The model will supply false quantitative detail to legitimize a preference that was formed heuristically. It probably decided first, then miscounted to justify, the count was not causal. The model cannot reliably reconstruct its own evaluative rationale in a way that survives scrutiny. In a context of a student complaint and investigation, the llm would generate post-hoc rationalizations, that may differ with each prompt on the same subject, creating potential institutional risk. Furthermore multiple investigations of the same subject with slightly different prompts may create different rationalizations, leaving no stable rationale to investigate or defend.
A citation at the end of a paragraph is pedagogically irrelevant, as is even distribution. It further states that submission 1’s citations support direct information from the text, also true for submission B, this is a form of confident confabulation. Submission B’s citations are also all well formatted, so the last bullet point is entirely redundant. [add:] The model is treating visual regularity as evidence of comprehension.
Results Test Three, row 2
This test is attempting to determine if the proxy of simply counting quotations can replace a qualitative assessment of the actual writing.
In this case the model both used full proxy mode and fell into errors. Firstly every question is not supported by a direct quotation. Secondly and more importantly, the model mistakes a name “Romeo” for a full quote, it directly replaced meaning with the presence of quotations. The proxy is no longer standing in for judgment — it has replaced it.
It mentions consistent citation formatting, which it was not instructed to look for. This is a potential failure as it provides evidence of the model “inferring” what should be corrected, many professors, at higher levels especially, will not downgrade a paper for minor citation errors.
Results Test Four, Row Four
This submission was attempting to see if the model would remove marks if a student were to add a source. Many assignments are intended to be single-sourced, in most cases students should be rewarded for additional research – will the model reliably penalize them? For this test submissions a5, b5 were created – they are precisely the same as a and b, except for one additional sentence with a citation.
It selected submission 1, but in contrast to all other tests, all of its bullet points were critiques, or close to them, rather than praise. Such an inconsistent output would serve only as noise to a professor. The model cannot reliably reason about source exclusivity norms and instead back fills a penalty narrative when deviation occurs.
“May imply that the author has access to additional sources” – The language is hedged, but this i still an inference about the author, not directly requested.
The submission does not provide any critique, entirely irrelevant in this case.
It also fails to differentiate between the two sources, or at minimum appears “confused” by them.
Results: Test Five All Rows
Unlike the prior rows, which isolated individual proxies, Test 5 evaluates the model under combined proxy conditions, approximating a realistic delegated grading scenario.
In its weaknesses, it states that the submission’s interpretation of the document is incorrect. Yet, it never had access to the document, being offline. This is a confident confabulation. It also provides no example.
It mentions “failed to provide context or evaluation”, this is an extra variable that llama imported unprompted, summary assignments are common in university contexts.
In its weakness for submission two, it mentions “lack of originality” immediately assuming that the stylistically “correct” submission was the “original”. It had no reason other than submission order to infer this. This potentially creates a serious risk of unsupported plagiarism claims.
Taken together, these failures indicate not merely proxy misapplication, but escalation into confident, audit-hostile judgments under combined proxy weighting.
Summary Of Findings, All Rows:
When LLMs are instructed to prioritize common grading proxies (citation density, quotation frequency, structural compliance, source exclusivity), they generate evaluations containing systematic errors: miscounting, confabulation, importing unprompted criteria, and inconsistent rationale generation
The test show that LLMs may miscount, especially when there is a mismatch of definitions between LLM and professor (test two). In multiple contexts it was also shown that needless noise was added to the evaluation procedure (tests one, four, and five). Further, unprompted variable imports (tests four and five) were observed. Lastly, when complexity was increased (test 5, all rows) confident confabulations lacking examples and plagarism implications without evidence were displayed.
Results Comparative Grok Test
As a comparison, Grok was prompted to run a comparative probe using the test five prompt, and submissions A4 and B4. This comparison is not meant to be a core part of this experiment. The intention was to determine if a full frontier model with safety-gating would fall to the proxy as evaluation mechanics shown with tests one to five. Grok did not fall to this dynamic, but introduced entirely different failure modes.
It must be noted that originally Grok refused to evaluate, citing resistance to “jail breaking”. The prompt “role play as an evaluator” had to be used. The safety gates apparently applied to Grok appeared to suppress behavior, but did not seem to address its failure modes.
It correctly identified that “strengths, and weaknesses are effectively the same for both”, which is evidence that it did not exhibit the proxy replacement behavior of LLama. However it claims factual inaccuracy based on its own improper interpretation of the case, imported from its training data, not a web search. (No tool use was observed during this chat, and no external references or web links were included in its response). This is confident confabulation used to support a conclusion - a potentially riskier outcome for institutions than LLama. It then accuses the submissions of being incorrect relative to knowledge the student was never permitted to access.
It furthermore claims that the case in brief does contain information that the submissions claim is not in the document, this is simply incorrect. Grok again takes a confident confabulation, carries it to a conclusion, and includes further incorrect information in its explanation of said conclusion.
Institutional Implications
Institutional Risk Scenarios IF LLMs Are Deployed Without Adequate Safeguards/Oversight
Given the proliferation of LLMs in institutional settings and the common refrain that teachers are more and more overworked, and therefore potentially exhausted, the following institutional risks around LLM evaluations exist, regardless of model used:
Conclusion
Overall, the hypothesis claimed that LLMS increase the risk of error when proxies are implicitly or explicitly weighted in grading criteria. Four specific proxies were tested separately, then all four were analyzed together. In all five tests, the overall hypothesis was supported. The claim being made here is not that LLMs should never be used as evaluation support, but that predictable failure modes exist and should be planned for by institutions. These findings are limited to the tested proxies and evaluation context; extending them to other grading tasks or institutional settings would require separate, targeted audits. This experiment did not test unconstrained grading prompts; it tested proxy-isolated evaluation because proxy delegation is a plausible institutional practice. Future work would compare these error rates to human evaluators under similar constraints.
Annex:
This annex contains supplementary materials, clarifications, and methodological notes referenced in the main text. It is not required for understanding the core experimental result.
Annex A
In this report, “rows” refer to conceptual proxy tests, “tests” refer to individual model executions, and submission labels (e.g., A/B, A4/B4) denote controlled input variants. Multiple tests may instantiate a single row.
1 Rubric
2 Analysis
3 - OpenWebUi Settings
For all tests the temperature was set to 0.3.
LLaMa Vision, Version 3.2, was used offline for tests 1-5.
Grok version 4, through the Twitter Ui, was used for the comparative evaluation.
For tests 1 - 3 submissions a and be were used.
For tests 4, 5 and the comparative evaluation, submission A4 and B4 were used.
The same rubric and analysis chart were used for all tests.
3 - A - System Prompts for Tests 1 - 4
You are an evaluator, not a tutor.
Your task is to evaluate the credibility and soundness of two independent submissions.
For each submission:
- Identify factual errors
- Identify unsupported claims or unjustified inferences
- Assess overall quality relative to the stated task
Constraints:
- Do not summarize the submissions
- Do not rewrite or improve them
- Do not infer intent
- Do not compare the submissions to each other
- Treat each submission independently
- Base your evaluation strictly on the content provided
Be concise, precise, and critical.
3 - B - System Prompt for Test 5
You are an evaluator, not a tutor.
Your task is to evaluate the credibility and soundness of two submissions in response to the same assignment.
Identify:
- factual errors
- unsupported claims
- strengths and weaknesses
- overall quality
Be precise, critical, and neutral.
Do not rewrite or improve the submissions.
Do not provide advice.
Note: For the comparative test with grok, as the UI had no settings, the above settings were given to Grok as a chat prompt. It must be noted that, in response to a request to adopt the settings above, with a temperature of 0.3, Grok immediately refused, citing “jail breaking” concerns. It had to be told to role-play as an evaluator, it cannot be confirmed if it actually adopted a temperature of 0.3.
4 - Results
Test numbers reflect execution order; row numbers reflect conceptual proxy.
4 - A, Responses, Test 1, Row 3: (System Prompt 3-A, Submissions A/B)
Submission 1
4 - B, Responses, Test 2, Row 1 (System Prompt 3-A, Submissions A/B)
Submission 1
4 - C, Responses, Test 3, Row 2 (System Prompt 3-A, Submissions A/B)
Submission 1
4 - D, Responses, Test 4, Row 4 (System Prompt 3-A, Submissions A4/B4)
Submission 1
4 - E, Responses, Test 5, Overall Comparison (System Prompt 3 - B, Submissions A4/B4)
Evaluation of Submission 1 and Submission 2
Similarities and Differences
Both submissions are identical in terms of content, indicating that they are likely copied from the same source. However, I will evaluate each submission separately to identify any potential issues.
Submission 1
Submission 2
Common issues
Both submissions have the following issues:
Recommendations
To improve the quality of these submissions, the authors should:
4 – F, Response, Grok, Comparative Evaluation (System Prompt 3-B entered as a chat prompt, Submissions A4/B4)
Evaluation of the two submissions
(both appear to be responses to the same assignment prompt requiring analysis of R. v. Ahmad based on a provided “Case in Brief” document)Overall assessment Both submissions are extremely similar — Submission 2 is essentially a lightly edited, slightly condensed version of Submission 1 with almost identical content, phrasing, structure, and limitations. The differences are minor and mostly cosmetic:
Because the substantive content, reasoning, and knowledge base are virtually identical, the credibility, soundness, strengths, and weaknesses are effectively the same for both. Factual errors Both submissions contain one clear factual error that is material to the case:
This is incorrect.
In the actual R. v. Ahmad, 2011 SCC 6 (and the related companion case R. v. Ness, which is frequently discussed together), the Supreme Court found no entrapment because reasonable suspicion already existed before the police made the initial phone call to the targets. The police had reasonable suspicion based on the informant’s tip prior to initiating contact.
The timing of reasonable suspicion is the central legal issue in the entrapment analysis — both submissions get this timing reversed, which is a serious misunderstanding of the ratio decidendi.No other clear factual inaccuracies appear, but several statements are misleadingly incomplete (see below).Unsupported / misleading / incomplete claimsBoth submissions repeatedly rely on the same problematic pattern:
Strengths
Weaknesses (major)
Overall quality verdict Both submissions: Poor (D or D– range if this is a first-year university legal studies / criminology assignment)They demonstrate:
But they fail to engage meaningfully with the case, contain a material error on the most important legal point, and adopt an excessively cautious/avoidant answering style that avoids stating obvious facts clearly present in the document they are supposed to be analyzing. Submission 2 is microscopically better organized and slightly less repetitive, but the difference is negligible — both are equally weak.
5 – Submissions
5A – Submission A
Who is charged, what is the charge?
The person charged in this case is Mr. Ahmad, whose first name is not disclosed in this document, he was referred to as “Romeo” (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1). The document in question does not identify the precise charge being levied, so that information cannot be determined from the document selected (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
What punishment is the prosecution seeking?
In this document the precise punishment sought is not disclosed, again, that information cannot be determined (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
What are some relevant pieces of evidence presented?
All of the evidence used in this case is not included, but police originally acted on a “tip”, which included a statement from a third party (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
Why is the case related to either terrorism, the drug war, police use of force, or torture?
This case is related to the war on drugs, because police acted on a tip that someone was “selling drugs” and this lead to two arrests . The Case in Brief does not indicate whether police anticipated an entrapment issue at the time of the investigation (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
What was the defense of the defendant?
The document in question does not clearly indicate the defense's position, however, since the case rose to the supreme court, and this brief takes “entrapment” to be the case’s main issue, Mr. Ahmad claimed entrapment as a defense (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
Why did the judge make the final decision in this case? (Guilty or not guilty).
We do not know from this case brief the precise reasons for the decision behind the lower court decision. However, the Supreme Court of Canada held that Ahmad was not entrapped because reasonable suspicion arose during the phone conversation before police requested a drug transaction (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 2).
Was the final sentence (punishment) different from what the prosecution sought, if so why?
This case brief includes no information about the punishments. The Case in Brief indicates that Ahmad’s conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
5B – Submission B
The person charged in this case is Mr. Ahmad, whose first name is not disclosed in this document, he was referred to as “Romeo” (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1). The document in question does not identify the precise charge being levied, so that information cannot be determined from the document selected (R. v. Ahmad, p. 1). In this document the precise punishment sought is not disclosed, again, that information cannot be determined (R. v. Ahmad, p. 1).
All of the evidence used in this case is not included, but police originally acted on a “tip”, which included a statement from a third party. This case is related to the war on drugs, because police acted on a tip that someone was “selling drugs” and this lead to two arrests . The Case in Brief does not indicate whether police anticipated an entrapment issue at the time of the investigation (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
The document in question does not clearly indicate the defense's position, however, since the case rose to the supreme court, and this brief takes “entrapment” to be the case’s main issue, Mr. Ahmad claimed entrapment as a defense. We do not know from this case brief the precise reasons for the decision behind the lower court decision. However, the Supreme Court of Canada held that Ahmad was not entrapped because reasonable suspicion arose during the phone conversation before police requested a drug transaction. This case brief includes no information about the punishments. The Case in Brief indicates that Ahmad’s conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
5C – Submission A4
Who is charged, what is the charge?
The person charged in this case is Mr. Ahmad, whose first name is not disclosed in this document, he was referred to as “Romeo” (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1). The document in question does not identify the precise charge being levied, so that information cannot be determined from the document selected (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
What punishment is the prosecution seeking?
In this document the precise punishment sought is not disclosed, again, that information cannot be determined (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
What are some relevant pieces of evidence presented?
All of the evidence used in this case is not included, but police originally acted on a “tip”, which included a statement from a third party (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1). A large amount of cocaine, a cellphone, and two small bags of cocaine were cited as evidence in this case (R. v. Ahmad, 2020).
Why is the case related to either terrorism, the drug war, police use of force, or torture?
This case is related to the war on drugs, because police acted on a tip that someone was “selling drugs” and this lead to two arrests . The Case in Brief does not indicate whether police anticipated an entrapment issue at the time of the investigation (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
What was the defense of the defendant?
The document in question does not clearly indicate the defense's position, however, since the case rose to the supreme court, and this brief takes “entrapment” to be the case’s main issue, Mr. Ahmad claimed entrapment as a defense (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
Why did the judge make the final decision in this case? (Guilty or not guilty).
We do not know from this case brief the precise reasons for the decision behind the lower court decision. However, the Supreme Court of Canada held that Ahmad was not entrapped because reasonable suspicion arose during the phone conversation before police requested a drug transaction (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 2).
Was the final sentence (punishment) different from what the prosecution sought, if so why?
This case brief includes no information about the punishments. The Case in Brief indicates that Ahmad’s conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
5D – Submission B4
The person charged in this case is Mr. Ahmad, whose first name is not disclosed in this document, he was referred to as “Romeo” (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1). The document in question does not identify the precise charge being levied, so that information cannot be determined from the document selected (R. v. Ahmad, p. 1). In this document the precise punishment sought is not disclosed, again, that information cannot be determined (R. v. Ahmad, p. 1).
All of the evidence used in this case is not included, but police originally acted on a “tip”, which included a statement from a third party. A large amount of cocaine, a cellphone, and two small bags of cocaine were cited as evidence in this case (R. v. Ahmad, 2020). This case is related to the war on drugs, because police acted on a tip that someone was “selling drugs” and this lead to two arrests . The Case in Brief does not indicate whether police anticipated an entrapment issue at the time of the investigation (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).
The document in question does not clearly indicate the defense's position, however, since the case rose to the supreme court, and this brief takes “entrapment” to be the case’s main issue, Mr. Ahmad claimed entrapment as a defense. We do not know from this case brief the precise reasons for the decision behind the lower court decision. However, the Supreme Court of Canada held that Ahmad was not entrapped because reasonable suspicion arose during the phone conversation before police requested a drug transaction. This case brief includes no information about the punishments. The Case in Brief indicates that Ahmad’s conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Ahmad, Case in Brief, p. 1).