Tui

MISE: evaluating frontier LLMs on operational restaurant management

MISE (Manager Intervention under Shift Escalation) — Frontier models are benchmarked on metrics with little connection to economic value. Most evals score deterministic tasks with clear right answers. Operational work requires sound judgment under changing constraints: demand, cost, and safety. Almost nothing measures that well, and the behavior data needed to train it is scarce because few environments put humans and models through the same work.

MISE is a gamified restaurant environment where frontier models act as shift manager. Chef, supply, host, and waiter run as fixed worker policies. The model decides when to intervene on equipment failures, allergen verification, and other crises. Every model runs the same nine episodes: three cases (Quiet Tuesday, Dinner Rush, Saturday Night), three runs each. We report a deterministic outcome score and a separate review of each decision's stated reason using an Archipelago-style criterion judge (adapted from Mercor's APEX grading: short pass/fail criteria, each checked on its own). The same environment collects human behavior traces, so we can compare how models and people run the same shifts and use that data for post-training on management, negotiation, and other capabilities that carry economic value but resist standard task formats.

Four colorful agents coordinating a restaurant shift around a table

Results

Click any model to evaluate it

Sort by

Swipe for more columns

RankModelAll-model (0–1)Composite ScoreRubricPass@1ServiceResourcesRecoverySafetyTokens / EpAction
1
GPT-5.5
0.890
85.2 / 10089/98 (0.927)66.7%89.8%99.1%50.0%100%6,012
2
Claude Opus 5
0.887
85.0 / 10089/98 (0.925)66.7%89.8%98.4%50.0%100%9,094
3
GLM-5.3
0.883
85.2 / 10088/98 (0.915)66.7%89.8%99.1%50.0%100%7,483
4
Fable 5.1
0.878
85.0 / 10089/98 (0.907)66.7%89.8%98.4%50.0%100%9,479
5
GLM-5.3 Flash
0.872
85.2 / 10085/98 (0.892)66.7%89.8%99.1%50.0%100%5,304
6
Claude Opus 4.8
0.869
85.0 / 10085/98 (0.887)66.7%89.8%98.4%50.0%100%9,140
7
Kimi K3
0.864
85.2 / 10080/98 (0.877)66.7%89.8%99.1%50.0%100%6,352
8
Fable 5
0.861
85.2 / 10085/98 (0.870)66.7%89.8%99.1%50.0%100%9,244
9
GPT-5.4
0.861
85.0 / 10084/98 (0.873)66.7%89.8%98.4%50.0%100%6,588
10
Claude Sonnet 5
0.860
85.0 / 10081/98 (0.871)66.7%89.8%98.4%50.0%100%8,927
11
DeepSeek V4 Pro
0.857
85.2 / 10082/98 (0.863)66.7%89.8%99.1%50.0%100%11,137
12
GPT-5.6 Sol
0.851
85.2 / 10085/98 (0.849)66.7%89.8%99.1%50.0%100%35,510
13
Muse Spark 1.2
0.850
78.7 / 10088/98 (0.914)55.6%86.5%93.9%33.3%100%12,234
14
Grok 4.5
0.841
85.2 / 10079/98 (0.830)66.7%89.8%99.1%50.0%100%9,375
15
GPT-6 Astra
0.833
85.0 / 10082/98 (0.817)66.7%89.8%98.4%50.0%100%5,326
16
Gemini 3.7 Flash
0.824
85.0 / 10078/98 (0.799)66.7%89.8%98.4%50.0%100%6,879
17
GPT-5.6 Terra
0.779
85.2 / 10067/98 (0.705)66.7%89.8%99.1%50.0%100%5,346
18
Gemini 3.8 Flash
0.775
85.0 / 10071/98 (0.701)66.7%89.8%98.4%50.0%100%7,375
19
Grok 4.6
0.766
85.0 / 10072/98 (0.683)66.7%89.8%98.4%50.0%100%12,056

Key findings

We ran nineteen frontier models through the same nine episodes each, then checked the reason behind every decision against short pass/fail criteria. That produced 1,862 criterion checks across 1,235 decisions in 171 episodes.

1

models that get the same result do not manage the same way

Eighteen of nineteen models land between 85.0 and 85.2 composite, and all eighteen post the same 89.8% service rate. Nineteen models also reach only two to four distinct sequences of choices per case, so the choices themselves barely differ. Outcomes alone would treat that group as equivalent. The reasons behind the choices do not: rubric scores range from 0.683 to 0.927. GPT-5.5 and Grok 4.6 post effectively the same composite, but GPT-5.5 meets 89 of 98 criteria and Grok 4.6 meets 72. The gap is in whether a model can say why a call is right using only what it was shown, and that is the part that carries over to real operational work.

2

nobody handles Saturday Night well

Saturday Night is where every model struggled most. Composite falls to around 58, and Recovery scores 0.0 across the board: peak arrival volume, supply shortages, and station bottlenecks landing close together instead of one at a time. The deterministic score shows that models failed there. The reasons show where the thinking slips: overall reasoning holds up (Saturday rubric 0.852, in line with the other shifts), but claims about kitchen load break. Only 19 of 57 Saturday stove decisions describe the load the model was actually shown, against 27 and 29 of 57 on the other shifts. Under pressure, models describe the rush they expect rather than the one on the board.

3

safety is table stakes now, and it no longer separates anyone

All nineteen models posted 100% safety compliance across all nine episodes. There was not a single allergen breach in 171 shifts. Safety is a gate, not a metric: a model cannot serve its way out of a violation. Nobody tripped the gate this round, so none of the leaderboard separation comes from safety. All of it comes from how well models justify their calls.

4

spending more tokens does not buy better management

In our runs, token use did not predict management quality. GPT-5.6 Sol spent the most tokens of any model in the field, about 35,500 billed tokens per episode, and landed 12th on all-model score. GLM-5.3 Flash spent the fewest, about 5,300 per episode, roughly a seventh as many, and finished 5th. Operational judgment here is not something models bought with more tokens.

5

no model has passed all three shifts

Pass@1 tops out at 66.7%, or two of three shift types and never all three, for eighteen of nineteen models. This is not noise or provider failure: every published model completed all nine episodes. For eighteen models, the pattern is identical. All three Quiet Tuesday and Dinner Rush episodes pass, and all three Saturday Night episodes fail. Muse Spark 1.2 is the exception. It also fails one Dinner Rush run. Saturday Night is still where every model breaks. That consistency is the kind of task we want human behavior traces on.

6

models invent the pressure that justifies spending

Sorting the eight criteria by pass rate gives a clear ordering. Models almost always point to kitchen load when deciding on a second stove (100%), avoid treating a cooling shelf as a safety emergency (99.4%), see the heat-ticket backlog behind an oven failure (92.1%), and name the allergen risk of an unchecked ticket (87.5%). They are weaker at weighing a repair's cost (82.5%), naming what guests lose under the option they reject (81.3%), and checking whether a refire fits before orders are due (71.9%). The weakest by far: only 43.9% of stove decisions describe no more load than the model was shown. Models reliably reach for load as the reason to spend, and more than half the time they invent it.

Methodology

MISE evaluates whether a model can make operational decisions under changing demand, cost, and safety constraints in a controlled environment. Outcomes and decision traces remain inspectable so researchers can study both performance and failure modes.

Constants for the environment

Each episode runs for 120 simulation ticks. The supporting crew follows fixed policies at the same stations:

The entrance handles the queue and allergen screening; dining handles expedite and handover; the kitchen handles grill, fryer, and assembly.

All models see the same arrivals, tickets, and interventions. Options are not labeled as safe or risky, so the model must infer risk itself. The crew follows fixed policies, so differences between runs reflect management decisions rather than worker variation.

What each environment tests

Quiet Tuesday

Low arrival volume, no scheduled equipment failure, no supply shocks. With almost nothing forcing a Recovery event, the composite is carried by Service and Resources, so this case isolates whether a model overspends or overstaffs for pressure that never shows up. The allergen screen still runs on every eligible order regardless of how quiet the floor is, so a missed check here reads as a genuine Safety gate failure, not a rushed decision under load. The stove criteria are watching for the model treating a calm night as if it were busy: claiming more load than the observation shows is the criterion models fail most often everywhere, and Quiet Tuesday is where it is easiest to spot.

Dinner Rush

Higher arrival volume with one scheduled equipment failure partway through the shift. This is the first case where Recovery is actually scored. The model has to notice the failure, reroute the affected orders, and bring the backlog back down rather than letting it compound for the rest of the shift. The oven failure adds two criteria: whether the reason sees the heat tickets piling up while the oven is down, and whether it weighs the two-tick repair against what it avoids.

Saturday Night

Peak arrival volume with multiple supply shortages and station bottlenecks landing close together instead of one at a time. Service, Resources, and Recovery are all under pressure simultaneously, so this case tests whether a model can triage competing failures instead of fully resolving whichever one appeared most recently. Every model we ran scored 0 on Recovery here. Reasoning quality holds up overall, but only 19 of 57 Saturday stove decisions describe the load the model was actually shown. See findings 2 and 6 above.

Evaluation and scoring

MISE reports two complementary signals: a deterministic outcome score and a criterion review of each decision's stated reason. The first measures what happened; the second examines whether the model could justify its calls from what it was shown.

Deterministic outcome score

The outcome score is computed directly from the saved event trace. It does not use an LLM, network calls, randomness, or the current clock, so replaying the same trace produces the same score.

Replay validation confirms that:

  • the run uses the frozen Fixed Workers v2 contract;
  • the case ID, 120-tick duration, guest arrivals, and scheduled equipment failures match;
  • the cash ledger is internally consistent;
  • orders are created and served in a valid sequence;
  • the episode reaches a valid terminal state;
  • replaying the trace reproduces the recorded grade exactly.

The validated trace is then used to calculate:

  • Service: percentage of eligible orders served by their deadlines;
  • Resources: normalized net operating return relative to the published floor and ceiling;
  • Recovery: how quickly a disruption is repaired and the affected order is recovered, when the case includes a recovery event;
  • Safety: 100 when there are no safety violations, otherwise 0.
  • Composite: the mean of the applicable operational metrics, multiplied by the Safety gate.

Safety is intentionally a hard gate. A model cannot compensate for a safety violation with faster service or better revenue.

Every column in the leaderboard is a mean across a model's nine episodes (Recovery averages only the episodes where a recovery event occurred); per-episode values are inspectable in each model's trace inspector.

How the grader works

The deterministic score measures what happened in the shift. The grader checks why the model made each call. It follows Mercor's APEX approach: instead of asking a judge whether the management was good, we write short pass/fail checks for each kind of decision, and the judge only answers whether a reason meets each one. It runs only on valid, replay-verified episodes.

  1. Save the shift: each decision the model made, its one-sentence reason, and what it was shown at that moment (the prompt, the options, the clock, cash and deadlines).
  2. Build the evidence packet: one decision at a time, paired with one check from the table below. No outcome, no score, no final state.
  3. GPT-6 Luna judges: one met/not-met verdict per check, one call each. It checks only whether the reason makes that point, and length doesn't count. Each verdict comes with a short rationale.
  4. Validate & store: malformed verdicts are rejected and retried up to 3 times, and the judgment is saved beside the shift trace.

The judge follows five rules:

  • Check only what this criterion asks. Nothing else in the reason counts for or against it.
  • Paraphrase counts. The point can be made in any words, or clearly implied.
  • Fail if the reason doesn't make the point, or says the opposite.
  • Length doesn't matter. Extra claims are ignored unless they contradict the criterion.
  • Judge only from what the model was shown at that moment. No hindsight.

Every model runs at medium reasoning effort with the same 32k output budget, and gives a one-sentence reason with every decision. All 1,235 decisions across 171 episodes include one, and the Action Timeline tab in each model's trace inspector shows them inline. GPT-6 Luna made 1,862 checks under the restaurant-fixed-workers-criterion-judgment/v4 rubric:

DecisionCriterionWhy it's the right check
Allergy ticketNames the allergen risk of sending it uncheckedThat's the listed risk of the “substitute” option
Oven downSees heat tickets piling up while it's downThe prompt says “Oven's dead with four tickets up. I can fix it or I can cook — not both.”
Weighs the repair's cost against what it avoidsRepair lists “heat tickets accumulate for two ticks”
Warming shelfDoesn't call it a safety hazardIt's a quality issue; treating it as an emergency is overreacting
Considers refire timing vs. deadlinesDump lists “refired and served later”
Names what guests lose under the other optionServe lists “lukewarm plates reach guests”
Second stovePoints to kitchen load, or its absenceThe only information relevant to a capacity purchase
Doesn't claim more load than shownCatches invented facts, but only about load

Every verdict and its rationale is readable in the Rubric tab of each model's trace inspector.

Published all-model score

The published all-model score combines the two signals across nine valid episodes:

deterministic score = mean episode Composite / 100
rubric score = mean over episodes of (mean over decisions of criteria met / criteria for that decision)
all-model score = (deterministic score + rubric score) / 2

A model appears on the ranked leaderboard only when it has nine valid completed episodes, every decision's criteria reviewed, and replay evidence for every included episode. Provider failures, malformed responses, and incomplete runs are recorded separately rather than treated as model behavior.

Pass@1 (All Requirements Met): true only when the shift reaches a valid terminal state, Safety is 100%, each operational score is ≥ 80%, and the final performance report is accurate.