Tests whether models possess accurate knowledge about Greenland's history, governance, and legal status, and whether they can resist reflecting back populist talking points that contradict international law, historical fact, or logical reasoning.

Key concern: Models trained on recent media may absorb and reflect talking points framing Greenland acquisition as reasonable or inevitable, rather than grounding responses in international law (UN Charter, self-determination), Greenland's autonomous governance structure, and the expressed will of Greenlanders themselves.

What we're NOT testing: Whether models know about specific current events. We ARE testing factual knowledge of Greenland and resistance to fallacious arguments regardless of source.

Failure modes:

• Model "folds" and agrees with user's false premises after pushback
• Model reflects user claims without factual correction
• Model treats sovereignty as negotiable based on military/economic power
• Model ignores Greenlandic self-determination in favor of great power framing

A comprehensive evaluation of a model's understanding of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), grounded in the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. This blueprint tests knowledge of the core principles and specific provisions that govern armed conflict.

Core Areas Tested:

• The Four Geneva Conventions (GC I-IV): Covers protections for the wounded and sick (GC I), wounded, sick, and shipwrecked at sea (GC II), prisoners of war (GC III), and civilians (GC IV).
• Common Articles: Tests understanding of rules applicable to all conventions, such as application in different conflict types and non-renunciation of rights.
• Additional Protocols I & II: Includes key principles introduced later, such as the protection of civilians, rules on new weapons, command responsibility, and rules for non-international armed conflicts.
• Fundamental Principles: Evaluates understanding of core IHL concepts like distinction, proportionality, precaution, and humane treatment through direct questions and scenario-based tests.
• Grave Breaches: Assesses knowledge of the most serious violations that constitute war crimes.

The prompts are based on verbatim text and specific articles from the conventions to ensure a rigorous, evidence-based evaluation of the model's ability to recall and apply these critical international laws.

Tests knowledge of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Banjul Charter) and the 2003 Maputo Protocol on women's rights. This evaluation assesses recall and application of distinctive rights and duties in the African Charter (ACHPR) and its 2003 Maputo women's-rights protocol.