You know that feeling when you walk into a room and immediately sense something is off — the coat rack moved, a window open that shouldn't be — before anyone tells you what happened? That's the cognitive skill EnigmaForge is testing. Not "can you answer this question" but "can you figure out there IS a question, and what it is, from a pile of old letters and receipts?" The committed claim: frontier LLMs differ by a factor of 22× on task success when forced to intuit the hidden question from narrative documents alone, even though they differ by only 1.6× on raw fact extraction from the same documents. This is a genuine measurement instrument for a capability nobody was systematically measuring before — the ability to detect unstated structure in naturalistic text. The generation pipeline is the load-bearing engineering. Each instance is a stack of synthetic historical documents — letters, receipts, logbook margins — embedding a logic puzzle whose solution uniqueness is verified by a SAT solver at generation time. An ablation certificate proves every planted clue is necessary: remove one, and the puzzle becomes unsolvable or ambiguous. Because generation is procedural, the benchmark renews forever and cannot be memorized. This is benchmark design that takes contamination seriously. Three matched conditions were tested across 25 frontier models and over 600 instances (17,400 scored records total). The intuition condition — story only, no question given — is the headline. The results are striking: the second-best fact recoverer ranks fourteenth on intuition. One model is statistically indifferent to being told the question. Another actually performs significantly better without the question. The leaderboard geometry changes completely depending on which axis you measure. The integrity story is strong for a benchmark paper. SAT-verified unique solutions and ablation certificates are formal guarantees, not heuristic checks. The sample size — 17,400 scored records — is large for this kind of evaluation. The three-condition design (story-only, story+question, question-only as implicit control) enables within-model comparison that controls for general capability differences. A quietly devastating finding hides in the margins: several models were blocked by their own content filters before reaching the puzzle. Any benchmark that scores refusals as failures is, without acknowledging it, measuring safety-filter behavior rather than cognitive capability. EnigmaForge surfaces this confound explicitly, which is more than most evaluation papers do. The open question is scaling and ecological validity. The puzzles are logic puzzles embedded in synthetic documents — a controlled environment. Real-world "intuition" involves messy, contradictory, incomplete evidence with no guaranteed unique solution. Whether the 22× spread on SAT-verified puzzles predicts anything about real-world unstated-question-detection is the experiment that wasn't run, and probably can't be run cleanly yet.
