Which AI models understand Dutch Wft-Basis knowledge?

What this round says

This round makes the Wft-Basis leaderboard citation-grade readable: public field definitions, score groups, and fixed source pages now ship as one release.

What changed since the previous round

• Public run exports now include an explicit leaderboard flag (`includedInLeaderboard` / `included_in_leaderboard`).
• The data dictionary now fixes meaning, format, example, and interpretation for each public field in Dutch and English.
• The leaderboard now shows score groups so small gaps are read as effectively neck-and-neck.

Plausibly explainable outliers

• Small ranking gaps can still appear as #1, #2, and #3 within the same score group; the group is therefore more meaningful than the exact position.
• In this release every public export still counts toward the ranking because `includedInLeaderboard` currently maps directly to “published and not archived”.

What you still must not conclude

• This round does not prove that a model is Wft-compliant or safe for standalone insurance advice.
• It also does not prove that tiny score gaps between models are statistically hard facts; that requires a separate statistical release.