Inspect historical council readings (5 recorded for this criterion)
These are separately attributed readings of this record, not independent community contributions. Versions can differ; no new consensus has been calculated.
Claude Opus 5
Not addressedRubric v2 · Historical council readingNo evidence quotation was recorded for this finding.
Recorded reference: No page reference recorded
Published rationale. Maximum allowable cost appears in the tables on pages 10 and 11 only as the label for the current pricing arrangement with OptumRx, while the proposed Envision generic rates are stated as discounts off average wholesale price. There is no statement that a single list governs both what the county pays and what pharmacies are paid, no disclosure requirement, no update schedule and no pharmacy appeals path with timelines. Whether any list governance exists would have to be read in the executed agreement, which is not part of the packet.
“Not addressed” is this published review’s conclusion about the produced text, not proof that a provision is absent from every version or withheld document.
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Not addressedRubric v2 · Historical council readingNo evidence quotation was recorded for this finding.
Recorded reference: No page reference recorded
Published rationale. Although MAC pricing is mentioned in the summary tables, the lack of the base agreement means MAC list governance rules and appeals paths are completely missing.
“Not addressed” is this published review’s conclusion about the produced text, not proof that a provision is absent from every version or withheld document.
GPT 5.6 Sol
Not addressedRubric v2 · Historical council readingNo evidence quotation was recorded for this finding.
Recorded reference: No page reference recorded
Published rationale. Page 11 mentions MAC pricing only in the current mail-order comparison, while Envision's proposed generic prices are stated as AWP discounts. No Envision clause requires one disclosed MAC list, scheduled updates, or a pharmacy appeal process with deadlines. The executed agreement is absent.
“Not addressed” is this published review’s conclusion about the produced text, not proof that a provision is absent from every version or withheld document.
Grok 4.6
Not addressedRubric v2 · Historical council readingNo evidence quotation was recorded for this finding.
Recorded reference: No page reference recorded
Published rationale. Page 10 shows current generic pricing as MAC and proposed generic pricing as AWP-74.5%, and page 11 shows mail generic moving from MAC Pricing to AWP-79.00%. That is a change in the pricing index, not MAC list governance. There is no single list for plan and pharmacy, no disclosure schedule, and no pharmacy appeals path in this backup.
“Not addressed” is this published review’s conclusion about the produced text, not proof that a provision is absent from every version or withheld document.
Kimi K3
Not addressedRubric v2 · Historical council readingNo evidence quotation was recorded for this finding.
Recorded reference: No page reference recorded
Published rationale. The letters MAC appear on pages 10 and 11 only in the current UHC column, where generic pricing is listed as MAC or MAC Pricing, while the proposed Envision pricing is stated as AWP discounts (AWP-74.5% retail, AWP-79.00% mail). There is no mention of a MAC list for the new contract, no disclosure or update schedule, and no pharmacy appeals process.
“Not addressed” is this published review’s conclusion about the produced text, not proof that a provision is absent from every version or withheld document.