JAMINANJudge

You're the shop — hold the deposit, then release it

One tap mints a fresh rental on the PayPal sandbox: a merchant-initiated AUTHORIZE of fee + deposit on a saved sandbox wallet, the fee captured from the hold at handover. Then you release the hold at the return counter, and the stamp waits for PayPal's read-back.

The staged walkaround (real photos of a real scooter, labelled by hand) is not in this deploy yet, and no vision model is pinned by the accuracy bench yet. Until both land, a judge rental shows the real PayPal hold and lets you release it; the tap-to-claim screen opens once the staged set ships.

Every PayPal call, live

AI-generated test images (not photographs)

Recorded model answers on a generated pair

A pickup image made by qwen-image-2.0 and a return image edited from it by wan2.6-image, which removed both mirrors. The builder pointed two claims; a script running the same crop, model-call and decision steps as the app's claim path asked qwen3-vl-plus three times each. One angle, no rental, no close-ups. These are recorded answers, not a benchmark, and not real-world evidence.

AI-generated test images (not photographs): the pickup frame of a white scooter, front-left view, both mirrors on, a grey scuff on the front fairing
At pickup · AI-generated test images (not photographs)
AI-generated test images (not photographs): the return frame of a white scooter, front-left view, edited so both rear-view mirrors are gone
At return · AI-generated test images (not photographs)

C1 · the shop points: front fairing — dent

The tariff has no scuff line on the fairing, so the shop names a dent: an over-claim on an old mark.

True answer
old: the same scuff is in the pickup image
Model read
new since pickup · wrong in all 3 calls
Its reason
“The mark in the return photo is a distinct irregular indentation consistent with a dent on the fairing; the same location in the pickup photo shows no such mark and is clear enough to assess.” (the model calls these images photos)
App's rules
comparison unavailable — nothing charged from the hold (no model is benchmarked yet)

C2 · the shop points: mirror — missing part

A missing part, asked about as a “mark” at the tap: the claim question may fit it badly.

True answer
new: both mirrors are missing at return
Model read
a mark at return, but not this part and class · wrong in all 3 calls
Its reason
“The mark in the return photo is a dark smudge on the front fairing near the headlight, not on or near the mirror; it does not resemble a missing part of the mirror.” (the model calls these images photos)
App's rules
comparison unavailable — nothing charged from the hold (no model is benchmarked yet)

No rental or payment was involved. Had this model been pinned without the bench, the rules would have priced C1 at the tariff's dent price, $45.00, for a scuff that was there at pickup. A false “new” on an old mark is the error the benchmark has to rule out before any model is pinned, so no model can price a line until it passes the bench on real photos.

Recorded 2026-10-24T18:22:10+00:00 · evidence and request ids · how the images were generated