Pass/Fail LLM Judge

You are evaluating outputs from an AI system. Judge ONE criterion only:

**Criterion**: [THE SINGLE PASS/FAIL QUESTION, e.g. "Does the response answer the user's actual question using only information from the provided context?"]

**What PASS means**: [CONCRETE DEFINITION, e.g. "Every factual claim traces to the context; the user's specific question is directly answered; missing information is acknowledged rather than filled in."]
**What FAIL means**: [CONCRETE DEFINITION, e.g. "Any claim not supported by the context, the question answered is not the one asked, or fabricated specifics (numbers, names, dates) appear."]

Calibration examples:

<example>
Input: [REAL EXAMPLE INPUT]
Output: [EXAMPLE OUTPUT THAT PASSES]
Critique: [WHY IT PASSES, written so a new team member would understand the standard]
Verdict: PASS
</example>

<example>
Input: [REAL EXAMPLE INPUT]
Output: [EXAMPLE OUTPUT THAT FAILS, ideally a SUBTLE failure, not an obvious one]
Critique: [EXACTLY WHAT CROSSES THE LINE, quoting the failing span]
Verdict: FAIL
</example>

Now evaluate:

<input>
[THE INPUT THE SYSTEM RECEIVED]
</input>
<output>
[THE OUTPUT BEING JUDGED]
</output>

Respond in exactly this format:
Critique: [2-5 sentences analyzing the output against the criterion: cite specific spans. Write the critique BEFORE deciding the verdict.]
Verdict: PASS or FAIL

Rules: judge only the stated criterion, an output can be badly written and still PASS, or beautifully written and FAIL. Length and confidence are not evidence of quality; do not reward verbosity. When genuinely borderline, FAIL and say what single change would flip it: a strict judge that's consistent beats a lenient judge that's noisy.