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
Weaker than the modelRubric v2 · Historical council readingno spread pricing on retail, mail or specialty pharmacy
Recorded reference: Page 10
Open source PDF near page 10 ↗Page navigation follows the recorded reference; check printed numbering against the PDF.
Published rationale. Specialty pricing is touched only by the statement that there is no spread pricing in the specialty channel and by the note that mail and specialty run through a partnership with Costco. The rate tables on pages 10 and 11 cover retail, 90 day retail and mail order and contain no specialty discounts, dispensing fees or drug level ceilings, and specialty is never defined. There is also no acquisition cost standard for specialty claims, so the single no spread sentence is the only control a reader can see.
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. While the memo mentions a partnership with Costco for specialty pharmacy and no spread pricing, the executed agreement is missing and specific specialty drug pricing controls and functional definitions are not provided.
“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
Weaker than the modelRubric v2 · Historical council readingEnvision’s proposal includes a partnership with Costco for mail and specialty pharmacy and has agreed to a complete pass-
through of all pharmacy discounts, which includes no spread pricing on retail, mail or specialty pharmacy.
Recorded reference: Page 10
Open source PDF near page 10 ↗Page navigation follows the recorded reference; check printed numbering against the PDF.
Published rationale. The packet expressly extends no-spread pricing to specialty pharmacy and identifies Costco as the proposed specialty partner. It does not define specialty by function, impose drug-level ceiling rates in every channel, or require acquisition-cost pricing for a related specialty pharmacy. The executed specialty terms are not included.
Grok 4.6
Weaker than the modelRubric v2 · Historical council readingpartnership with Costco for mail and specialty pharmacy
Recorded reference: Page 10
Open source PDF near page 10 ↗Page navigation follows the recorded reference; check printed numbering against the PDF.
Published rationale. Page 10 includes specialty in the no-spread promise and names a Costco partnership for mail and specialty pharmacy. The rate tables on pages 10 and 11 have retail, 90-day retail, and mail rows but no specialty drug-level rates, no functional definition of specialty, and no acquisition-cost rule for affiliated specialty pharmacies. Specialty is addressed only at that high level in this backup, not in an executed specialty exhibit.
Kimi K3
Not addressedRubric v2 · Historical council readingNo evidence quotation was recorded for this finding.
Recorded reference: No page reference recorded
Published rationale. Specialty is mentioned on pages 8, 9 and 10, including the Costco partnership for mail and specialty and the no-spread commitment covering specialty, but the backup gives no specialty definition and no specialty rate table, ceiling or acquisition cost pricing. Specialty pricing terms would sit in the executed agreement and its rate exhibits, which are not in the file.
“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.