{"_id": {"$oid": "6a6526e45757a0bff2d80137"}, "test_id": "T1392", "benchmark": "business_letters", "date": "2026-07-25", "tags": {"document-type": ["letter"], "writing": ["typed", "handwritten"], "century": [20], "language": ["de"], "layout": ["prose"], "entry-type": ["person", "location"], "task": ["information-extraction"]}, "contributors": ["eric_decker", "maximilian_hindermann", "lea_kasper", "anthea_alberto", "pema_frick", "jose_luis_losada_palenzuela", "sorin_marti", "elena_spadini"], "hidden": false, "config": {"provider": "openrouter", "model": "moonshotai/kimi-k3", "dataclass": "Document", "temperature": 0.0, "role_description": "You are a historian with keyword knowledge and an expert in the field of 20th century Swiss history", "prompt_file": "prompt.txt", "rules": "{\"skip_signatures\": true, \"skip_non_signatures\": false}", "legacy_test": false}, "prompt": "            IDENTITY and PURPOSE:\n\n            You are presented with a series of images constituting a historical letter. Your task is to extract the\n            values of the following keys from the letter and return them in a JSON file where the values\n            corresponding to each key should be stored as a list, even if there is only a single value for a\n            key:\n\n            - letter_title: Title of the letter.\n            - sender_persons: Name(s) of the person(s) who wrote the letter.\n            - send_date: The exact or approximate date the letter was written.\n            - receiver_persons: Name(s) of the person(s) who received the letter.\n\n            Take a deep breath and think step by step about how to best accomplish this goal. Map out all the claims\n            and implications on a virtual whiteboard in your mind. Do not use OCR. Use the ISO format YYYY-MM-DD for\n            dates. If a piece of information is not included in the letter, set the value for the corresponding key\n            to \"null\". Do not return anything except the JSON file.\n\n            EXAMPLE:\n\n            {\n                \"letter_title\": [\"Petition for Environmental Protection\"],\n                \"send_date\": [\"1993-03-12\"],\n                \"sender_persons\": [\"Lisa Simpson\"],\n                \"receiver_persons\": [\"Mayor Joe Quimby\", \"Seymour Skinner\"],\n            }\n\n            OUTPUT:", "results": {"text": "{\"metadata\":{\"send_date\":[\"1928-05-03\"],\"letter_title\":null,\"sender_persons\":[\"Ritter\",\"Groschupf\"],\"receiver_persons\":[\"W. Stauffacher\"]}}", "model": "moonshotai/kimi-k3", "provider": "openrouter", "finish_reason": "stop", "usage": {"input_tokens": 4502, "output_tokens": 2590, "total_tokens": 7092, "cached_tokens": 4352, "input_cost_usd": 0.013506, "output_cost_usd": 0.038849999999999996, "estimated_cost_usd": 0.052356}, "duration": 99.24661135673523, "timestamp": "2026-07-25T19:50:28.779518", "parsed": {"metadata": {"send_date": ["1928-05-03"], "letter_title": null, "sender_persons": ["Ritter", "Groschupf"], "receiver_persons": ["W. Stauffacher"], "document_number": "letter32"}}, "conversation_id": "d3130da1-24cd-45f8-8028-d6b4c6b930fb", "score": {"send_date_tp": 1, "send_date_fp": 0, "send_date_fn": 0, "sender_persons_tp": 2, "sender_persons_fp": 0, "sender_persons_fn": 0, "receiver_persons_tp": 1, "receiver_persons_fp": 0, "receiver_persons_fn": 0}, "raw_response": "{\"id\":\"gen-1785001748-v2SO14kTXBh8uZ8KHjm7\",\"choices\":[{\"finish_reason\":\"stop\",\"index\":0,\"logprobs\":null,\"message\":{\"content\":\"{\\\"metadata\\\":{\\\"letter_title\\\":null,\\\"send_date\\\":[\\\"1928-05-03\\\"],\\\"sender_persons\\\":[\\\"Ritter\\\",\\\"Groschupf\\\"],\\\"receiver_persons\\\":[\\\"W. Stauffacher\\\"]}}\",\"refusal\":null,\"role\":\"assistant\",\"annotations\":null,\"audio\":null,\"function_call\":null,\"tool_calls\":null,\"parsed\":{\"metadata\":{\"send_date\":[\"1928-05-03\"],\"letter_title\":null,\"sender_persons\":[\"Ritter\",\"Groschupf\"],\"receiver_persons\":[\"W. Stauffacher\"]}},\"reasoning\":\"The user wants me to extract values from a historical letter image and return them in a specific JSON format. Let me analyze the image carefully.\\n\\nFrom the image, I can read:\\n- \\\"Abschrift.\\\" (Copy) at the top right\\n- \\\"32\\\" in red\\n- \\\"Basler Rheinschiffahrt-Aktiengesellschaft\\\" - the sender organization\\n- \\\"R/M\\\" on the left\\n- \\\"Basel, den 3. Mai 1928.\\\" - date: May 3, 1928\\n- \\\"Herrn W. Stauffacher, Pr\u00e4sident des Vereins f\u00fcr die Schiffahrt auf dem Oberrhein, Basel.\\\" - receiver: W. Stauffacher\\n- Body mentions an article in \\\"No.4 der Rheinquellen\\\" about changes in passenger shipping Basel-Rheinfelden\\n- Signed: \\\"Hochachtend BASLER RHEINSCHIFFAHRT-AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT sig. Ritter sig. Groschupf\\\"\\n\\nSo:\\n- letter_title: There isn't an explicit title. The sender is \\\"Basler Rheinschiffahrt-Aktiengesellschaft\\\" but that's the letterhead. The letter doesn't have a title per se. Hmm. The prompt says \\\"Title of the letter.\\\" Looking at the document, there's no explicit title like \\\"Betreff\\\" line. The top has \\\"Abschrift.\\\" and the company name. I think the letter_title could be null, or perhaps the subject. Let me think.\\n\\nActually, looking again, there is no formal title/subject line (no \\\"Betreff:\\\"). The letter starts with the company name (letterhead), date, recipient address, then directly the body. So letter_title should probably be null.\\n\\nWait, but in many of these tasks, the \\\"letter_title\\\" might be derived from the letterhead or a title. The example shows \\\"Petition for Environmental Protection\\\" which sounds like a descriptive title. But the instruction says \\\"Title of the letter.\\\" If no title is included, set to null.\\n\\nLooking at the letter, there's no title. The \\\"Basler Rheinschiffahrt-Aktiengesellschaft\\\" is the sender (letterhead). I'll set letter_title to null. Actually, let me reconsider - maybe the title could be considered the company name? No, that's the sender. There's no separate title. I'll use null.\\n\\nHmm, but actually in the image, \\\"Basler Rheinschiffahrt-Aktiengesellschaft\\\" appears at the top like a letterhead, and also at the signature. The sender_persons should be the persons who wrote the letter. The signatures are \\\"Ritter\\\" and \\\"Groschupf\\\". The company is Basler Rheinschiffahrt-Aktiengesellschaft. The key is sender_persons - \\\"Name(s) of the person(s) who wrote the letter.\\\" \\n\\nThe signatures show \\\"sig. Ritter\\\" and \\\"sig. Groschupf\\\". So the persons are Ritter and Groschupf. But should I include the company? The key specifically says sender_persons (persons). So I should list \\\"Ritter\\\" and \\\"Groschupf\\\". But maybe with full names? We only have surnames. The signatures are \\\"Ritter\\\" and \\\"Groschupf\\\". \\n\\nWait, let me look: \\\"sig. Ritter\\\" and \\\"sig. Groschupf\\\". So sender_persons: [\\\"Ritter\\\", \\\"Groschupf\\\"]. But the letter is written on behalf of the company. However, the schema says sender_persons. The example uses person names. I'll include the signed persons. But should I also include the company? The field is \\\"sender_persons\\\" specifically, so persons. Ritter and Groschupf are the signatories.\\n\\nActually, considering the prompt: \\\"sender_persons: Name(s) of the person(s) who wrote the letter.\\\" The letter is from the company, signed by Ritter and Groschupf. I think listing the signatories is appropriate. But it might also be acceptable to list the company. Since it specifically says \\\"persons\\\", I'll list Ritter and Groschupf. Hmm, but their first names aren't given. Just \\\"Ritter\\\" and \\\"Groschupf\\\".\\n\\nWait, let me reconsider. In similar historical document extraction tasks, the sender is often the entity/person in the letterhead/signature. Given the field name sender_persons, and the signatures are Ritter and Groschupf, I'll use those. But the company is also a sender. The prompt says values should be stored as a list. I'll include the persons who signed: \\\"Ritter\\\" and \\\"Groschupf\\\". Actually, maybe it's safer to include them as they appear: \\\"sig. Ritter\\\" no, just names.\\n\\nLet me reconsider whether to include the company. The letter is from \\\"Basler Rheinschiffahrt-Aktiengesellschaft\\\". The closing says \\\"BASLER RHEINSCHIFFAHRT-AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT\\\" with signatures Ritter and Groschupf. Since the key is sender_persons (persons), I'll put the individual signatories. However, if only surnames are available, that's fine.\\n\\nHmm, but actually maybe the expected answer for sender includes the company since it's the sender, and the persons are signatories. Let me think about what's most accurate. The field explicitly says \\\"sender_persons\\\" and \\\"Name(s) of the person(s) who wrote the letter.\\\" So: Ritter and Groschupf.\\n\\nActually, wait \u2014 re-reading: there might be value in including the full names if known. \\\"W. Stauffacher\\\" is the receiver. For senders, only \\\"Ritter\\\" and \\\"Groschupf\\\" are given (no first names). I'll list them as \\\"Ritter\\\" and \\\"Groschupf\\\".\\n\\nBut hold on \u2014 is it possible the expected sender_persons is the company? Let me re-read the schema: sender_persons: Name(s) of the person(s). The company is not a person. So Ritter and Groschupf.\\n\\nsend_date: \\\"Basel, den 3. Mai 1928.\\\" \u2192 1928-05-03.\\n\\nreceiver_persons: \\\"Herrn W. Stauffacher, Pr\u00e4sident des Vereins f\u00fcr die Schiffahrt auf dem Oberrhein, Basel.\\\" \u2192 W. Stauffacher. The receiver person is W. Stauffacher. Should I include his title? The key says receiver_persons (names of persons). So \\\"W. Stauffacher\\\". Possibly the full name is \\\"W. Stauffacher\\\". I'll use \\\"W. Stauffacher\\\".\\n\\nletter_title: No explicit title. I'll set to null. But wait \u2014 the schema allows null. The user prompt says set value to \\\"null\\\" if not included. But in the JSON schema, the fields accept array or null. The example shows lists. The instruction: \\\"If a piece of information is not included in the letter, set the value for the corresponding key to 'null'.\\\" In the schema, null is allowed (not string \\\"null\\\"). So I should use actual null, not \\\"null\\\" string. The schema says anyOf array or null. So use null (JSON null).\\n\\nHmm, but the user says set to \\\"null\\\" (with quotes in the instruction). The schema clearly allows null type. I'll use null (the JSON value), consistent with schema. Actually, let me re-read: 'set the value for the corresponding key to \\\"null\\\"'. In context of JSON, that means null. The schema permits null. I'll use null.\\n\\nBut wait, is there a title? Let me look again. At the top: \\\"Abschrift.\\\" (meaning copy/transcript). Then \\\"Basler Rheinschiffahrt-Aktiengesellschaft\\\". There's no \\\"Betreff\\\" or title. So null is appropriate.\\n\\nActually, I realize some of these tasks consider the letterhead company as title. But no, I'll stick with null for letter_title since there's no title. Hmm, but let me reconsider: The first line \\\"Basler Rheinschiffahrt-Aktiengesellschaft\\\" could be interpreted as the sender's letterhead, not the title. There's no subject line. So null.\\n\\nWait, but actually, maybe I should reconsider sender_persons. Given this is a company letter, and the field asks for persons, but the signatories are only identified by surname with \\\"sig.\\\" (signature), perhaps the intended sender is the company and the persons are Ritter and Groschupf. Since the field name is sender_persons (and there's no sender_organizations field), I'll include Ritter and Groschupf. But maybe the task wants all senders including the organization? The prompt explicitly defines sender_persons as persons who wrote the letter. Ritter and Groschupf signed it. I'll go with [\\\"Ritter\\\", \\\"Groschupf\\\"].\\n\\nHold on, let me reconsider once more. In the signature block: \\\"Hochachtend / BASLER / RHEINSCHIFFAHRT-AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT / sig. Ritter    sig. Groschupf\\\". So the company is the sender, represented by Ritter and Groschupf. For \\\"sender_persons\\\", the people are Ritter and Groschupf. I'll list both. If first names are unknown, surnames suffice.\\n\\nLet me also reconsider \\\"Groschupf\\\" spelling. Looking carefully: \\\"sig. Groschupf\\\". Yes, Groschupf. Could be \\\"Groschupf\\\" \u2014 G-r-o-s-c-h-u-p-f. Yes.\\n\\nAnd \\\"Ritter\\\" \u2014 R-i-t-t-e-r. Yes.\\n\\nFinal JSON:\\n{\\n  \\\"metadata\\\": {\\n    \\\"letter_title\\\": null,\\n    \\\"receiver_persons\\\": [\\\"W. Stauffacher\\\"],\\n    \\\"send_date\\\": [\\\"1928-05-03\\\"],\\n    \\\"sender_persons\\\": [\\\"Ritter\\\", \\\"Groschupf\\\"]\\n  }\\n}\\n\\nWait, but should I include the company as sender? Let me think about this differently. The user prompt's example has \\\"sender_persons\\\": [\\\"Lisa Simpson\\\"] \u2014 a person. Here, the letter is authored by a company, signed by two individuals. The individuals are the persons who wrote/signed. I'll keep Ritter and Groschupf.\\n\\nHowever, I want to reconsider whether \\\"Basler Rheinschiffahrt-Aktiengesellschaft\\\" should be in sender_persons. Since the schema only has sender_persons (no organization), and the prompt says persons, I think the signatories are correct. But there's ambiguity. Given the letter explicitly says \\\"ersuchen wir Sie\\\" (we ask you) and signs as the company with two signatures, the \\\"we\\\" refers to the company. The persons signing are Ritter and Groschupf. I'll include just the persons. \\n\\nActually, on reflection, I think for this kind of extraction, including the signatory persons is the best match for \\\"sender_persons\\\". Final answer as above.\\n\\nOne more consideration: receiver \\\"Herrn W. Stauffacher\\\". The name is \\\"W. Stauffacher\\\". Should I expand? No, only what's in the letter. \\\"W. Stauffacher\\\".\\n\\nLet me format with the required schema. The response must be raw JSON without markdown.\\n\\nOrder per schema required: send_date, letter_title, sender_persons, receiver_persons are required but JSON object order doesn't matter. I'll present in a logical order. The schema's Metadata properties order: letter_title, receiver_persons, send_date, sender_persons (alphabetical in properties). Required order: send_date, letter_title, sender_persons, receiver_persons. I'll just include all four.\\n\\nLet me write final.\\n\",\"reasoning_details\":[{\"type\":\"reasoning.text\",\"text\":\"The user wants me to extract values from a historical letter image and return them in a specific JSON format. Let me analyze the image carefully.\\n\\nFrom the image, I can read:\\n- \\\"Abschrift.\\\" (Copy) at the top right\\n- \\\"32\\\" in red\\n- \\\"Basler Rheinschiffahrt-Aktiengesellschaft\\\" - the sender organization\\n- \\\"R/M\\\" on the left\\n- \\\"Basel, den 3. Mai 1928.\\\" - date: May 3, 1928\\n- \\\"Herrn W. Stauffacher, Pr\u00e4sident des Vereins f\u00fcr die Schiffahrt auf dem Oberrhein, Basel.\\\" - receiver: W. Stauffacher\\n- Body mentions an article in \\\"No.4 der Rheinquellen\\\" about changes in passenger shipping Basel-Rheinfelden\\n- Signed: \\\"Hochachtend BASLER RHEINSCHIFFAHRT-AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT sig. Ritter sig. Groschupf\\\"\\n\\nSo:\\n- letter_title: There isn't an explicit title. The sender is \\\"Basler Rheinschiffahrt-Aktiengesellschaft\\\" but that's the letterhead. The letter doesn't have a title per se. Hmm. The prompt says \\\"Title of the letter.\\\" Looking at the document, there's no explicit title like \\\"Betreff\\\" line. The top has \\\"Abschrift.\\\" and the company name. I think the letter_title could be null, or perhaps the subject. Let me think.\\n\\nActually, looking again, there is no formal title/subject line (no \\\"Betreff:\\\"). The letter starts with the company name (letterhead), date, recipient address, then directly the body. So letter_title should probably be null.\\n\\nWait, but in many of these tasks, the \\\"letter_title\\\" might be derived from the letterhead or a title. The example shows \\\"Petition for Environmental Protection\\\" which sounds like a descriptive title. But the instruction says \\\"Title of the letter.\\\" If no title is included, set to null.\\n\\nLooking at the letter, there's no title. The \\\"Basler Rheinschiffahrt-Aktiengesellschaft\\\" is the sender (letterhead). I'll set letter_title to null. Actually, let me reconsider - maybe the title could be considered the company name? No, that's the sender. There's no separate title. I'll use null.\\n\\nHmm, but actually in the image, \\\"Basler Rheinschiffahrt-Aktiengesellschaft\\\" appears at the top like a letterhead, and also at the signature. The sender_persons should be the persons who wrote the letter. The signatures are \\\"Ritter\\\" and \\\"Groschupf\\\". The company is Basler Rheinschiffahrt-Aktiengesellschaft. The key is sender_persons - \\\"Name(s) of the person(s) who wrote the letter.\\\" \\n\\nThe signatures show \\\"sig. Ritter\\\" and \\\"sig. Groschupf\\\". So the persons are Ritter and Groschupf. But should I include the company? The key specifically says sender_persons (persons). So I should list \\\"Ritter\\\" and \\\"Groschupf\\\". But maybe with full names? We only have surnames. The signatures are \\\"Ritter\\\" and \\\"Groschupf\\\". \\n\\nWait, let me look: \\\"sig. Ritter\\\" and \\\"sig. Groschupf\\\". So sender_persons: [\\\"Ritter\\\", \\\"Groschupf\\\"]. But the letter is written on behalf of the company. However, the schema says sender_persons. The example uses person names. I'll include the signed persons. But should I also include the company? The field is \\\"sender_persons\\\" specifically, so persons. Ritter and Groschupf are the signatories.\\n\\nActually, considering the prompt: \\\"sender_persons: Name(s) of the person(s) who wrote the letter.\\\" The letter is from the company, signed by Ritter and Groschupf. I think listing the signatories is appropriate. But it might also be acceptable to list the company. Since it specifically says \\\"persons\\\", I'll list Ritter and Groschupf. Hmm, but their first names aren't given. Just \\\"Ritter\\\" and \\\"Groschupf\\\".\\n\\nWait, let me reconsider. In similar historical document extraction tasks, the sender is often the entity/person in the letterhead/signature. Given the field name sender_persons, and the signatures are Ritter and Groschupf, I'll use those. But the company is also a sender. The prompt says values should be stored as a list. I'll include the persons who signed: \\\"Ritter\\\" and \\\"Groschupf\\\". Actually, maybe it's safer to include them as they appear: \\\"sig. Ritter\\\" no, just names.\\n\\nLet me reconsider whether to include the company. The letter is from \\\"Basler Rheinschiffahrt-Aktiengesellschaft\\\". The closing says \\\"BASLER RHEINSCHIFFAHRT-AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT\\\" with signatures Ritter and Groschupf. Since the key is sender_persons (persons), I'll put the individual signatories. However, if only surnames are available, that's fine.\\n\\nHmm, but actually maybe the expected answer for sender includes the company since it's the sender, and the persons are signatories. Let me think about what's most accurate. The field explicitly says \\\"sender_persons\\\" and \\\"Name(s) of the person(s) who wrote the letter.\\\" So: Ritter and Groschupf.\\n\\nActually, wait \u2014 re-reading: there might be value in including the full names if known. \\\"W. Stauffacher\\\" is the receiver. For senders, only \\\"Ritter\\\" and \\\"Groschupf\\\" are given (no first names). I'll list them as \\\"Ritter\\\" and \\\"Groschupf\\\".\\n\\nBut hold on \u2014 is it possible the expected sender_persons is the company? Let me re-read the schema: sender_persons: Name(s) of the person(s). The company is not a person. So Ritter and Groschupf.\\n\\nsend_date: \\\"Basel, den 3. Mai 1928.\\\" \u2192 1928-05-03.\\n\\nreceiver_persons: \\\"Herrn W. Stauffacher, Pr\u00e4sident des Vereins f\u00fcr die Schiffahrt auf dem Oberrhein, Basel.\\\" \u2192 W. Stauffacher. The receiver person is W. Stauffacher. Should I include his title? The key says receiver_persons (names of persons). So \\\"W. Stauffacher\\\". Possibly the full name is \\\"W. Stauffacher\\\". I'll use \\\"W. Stauffacher\\\".\\n\\nletter_title: No explicit title. I'll set to null. But wait \u2014 the schema allows null. The user prompt says set value to \\\"null\\\" if not included. But in the JSON schema, the fields accept array or null. The example shows lists. The instruction: \\\"If a piece of information is not included in the letter, set the value for the corresponding key to 'null'.\\\" In the schema, null is allowed (not string \\\"null\\\"). So I should use actual null, not \\\"null\\\" string. The schema says anyOf array or null. So use null (JSON null).\\n\\nHmm, but the user says set to \\\"null\\\" (with quotes in the instruction). The schema clearly allows null type. I'll use null (the JSON value), consistent with schema. Actually, let me re-read: 'set the value for the corresponding key to \\\"null\\\"'. In context of JSON, that means null. The schema permits null. I'll use null.\\n\\nBut wait, is there a title? Let me look again. At the top: \\\"Abschrift.\\\" (meaning copy/transcript). Then \\\"Basler Rheinschiffahrt-Aktiengesellschaft\\\". There's no \\\"Betreff\\\" or title. So null is appropriate.\\n\\nActually, I realize some of these tasks consider the letterhead company as title. But no, I'll stick with null for letter_title since there's no title. Hmm, but let me reconsider: The first line \\\"Basler Rheinschiffahrt-Aktiengesellschaft\\\" could be interpreted as the sender's letterhead, not the title. There's no subject line. So null.\\n\\nWait, but actually, maybe I should reconsider sender_persons. Given this is a company letter, and the field asks for persons, but the signatories are only identified by surname with \\\"sig.\\\" (signature), perhaps the intended sender is the company and the persons are Ritter and Groschupf. Since the field name is sender_persons (and there's no sender_organizations field), I'll include Ritter and Groschupf. But maybe the task wants all senders including the organization? The prompt explicitly defines sender_persons as persons who wrote the letter. Ritter and Groschupf signed it. I'll go with [\\\"Ritter\\\", \\\"Groschupf\\\"].\\n\\nHold on, let me reconsider once more. In the signature block: \\\"Hochachtend / BASLER / RHEINSCHIFFAHRT-AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT / sig. Ritter    sig. Groschupf\\\". So the company is the sender, represented by Ritter and Groschupf. For \\\"sender_persons\\\", the people are Ritter and Groschupf. I'll list both. If first names are unknown, surnames suffice.\\n\\nLet me also reconsider \\\"Groschupf\\\" spelling. Looking carefully: \\\"sig. Groschupf\\\". Yes, Groschupf. Could be \\\"Groschupf\\\" \u2014 G-r-o-s-c-h-u-p-f. Yes.\\n\\nAnd \\\"Ritter\\\" \u2014 R-i-t-t-e-r. Yes.\\n\\nFinal JSON:\\n{\\n  \\\"metadata\\\": {\\n    \\\"letter_title\\\": null,\\n    \\\"receiver_persons\\\": [\\\"W. Stauffacher\\\"],\\n    \\\"send_date\\\": [\\\"1928-05-03\\\"],\\n    \\\"sender_persons\\\": [\\\"Ritter\\\", \\\"Groschupf\\\"]\\n  }\\n}\\n\\nWait, but should I include the company as sender? Let me think about this differently. The user prompt's example has \\\"sender_persons\\\": [\\\"Lisa Simpson\\\"] \u2014 a person. Here, the letter is authored by a company, signed by two individuals. The individuals are the persons who wrote/signed. I'll keep Ritter and Groschupf.\\n\\nHowever, I want to reconsider whether \\\"Basler Rheinschiffahrt-Aktiengesellschaft\\\" should be in sender_persons. Since the schema only has sender_persons (no organization), and the prompt says persons, I think the signatories are correct. But there's ambiguity. Given the letter explicitly says \\\"ersuchen wir Sie\\\" (we ask you) and signs as the company with two signatures, the \\\"we\\\" refers to the company. The persons signing are Ritter and Groschupf. I'll include just the persons. \\n\\nActually, on reflection, I think for this kind of extraction, including the signatory persons is the best match for \\\"sender_persons\\\". Final answer as above.\\n\\nOne more consideration: receiver \\\"Herrn W. Stauffacher\\\". The name is \\\"W. Stauffacher\\\". Should I expand? No, only what's in the letter. \\\"W. Stauffacher\\\".\\n\\nLet me format with the required schema. The response must be raw JSON without markdown.\\n\\nOrder per schema required: send_date, letter_title, sender_persons, receiver_persons are required but JSON object order doesn't matter. I'll present in a logical order. The schema's Metadata properties order: letter_title, receiver_persons, send_date, sender_persons (alphabetical in properties). Required order: send_date, letter_title, sender_persons, receiver_persons. I'll just include all four.\\n\\nLet me write final.\\n\",\"format\":\"unknown\",\"index\":0}]},\"native_finish_reason\":\"stop\"}],\"created\":1785001748,\"model\":\"moonshotai/kimi-k3\",\"object\":\"chat.completion\",\"service_tier\":null,\"system_fingerprint\":\"fpv0_0d4e787e\",\"usage\":{\"completion_tokens\":2590,\"prompt_tokens\":4502,\"total_tokens\":7092,\"completion_tokens_details\":{\"accepted_prediction_tokens\":null,\"audio_tokens\":0,\"reasoning_tokens\":2532,\"rejected_prediction_tokens\":null,\"image_tokens\":0},\"prompt_tokens_details\":{\"audio_tokens\":0,\"cached_tokens\":4352,\"cache_write_tokens\":0,\"video_tokens\":0},\"cost\":0.0406056,\"is_byok\":false,\"cost_details\":{\"upstream_inference_cost\":0.0406056,\"upstream_inference_prompt_cost\":0.0017556,\"upstream_inference_completions_cost\":0.03885}},\"provider\":\"Moonshot AI\"}"}, "scoring": {"f1_macro": 0.58, "f1_micro": 0.69, "cost_summary": {"total_input_tokens": 151130, "total_output_tokens": 56898, "total_tokens": 208028, "input_cost_usd": 0.4533900000000001, "output_cost_usd": 0.85347, "total_cost_usd": 1.30686}}, "normalized_score": 57.99999999999999}