In finance, the answer that matters is usually the current one: prices, rates, and disclosures hold only as of a given day, so retrieving up-to-date facts is a core capability of a financial agent. Yet most financial benchmarks overlook timeliness. They fix each answer at annotation time, so the gold goes stale as markets move and, once leaked into training data, rewards recall rather than search and analysis. We introduce LiveSearch, a live benchmark that stores each question as executable verifier code: a typed program of calls to a professional financial data service, followed by a declarative extractor. The question is frozen, while its gold answer is determined by executing the program against professional financial data at evaluation time, and a daily job re-executes it with no human or language model in the loop. A memorized answer is thus likely outdated, and a model must reach the current one through tools and analysis. Construction is equally automatic: a language model only verbalizes programs enumerated from real tool responses and never chooses an answer. Under general web search, six contemporary tool-calling models reach 70.9% to 76.7% answer accuracy. Over three consecutive days, 70% of served questions change their gold value, and even under tolerance-aware matching, a literally reused earlier snapshot fails on a majority of questions within a single day. Per-question tracking uncovers dynamic shifts in correctness masked by aggregate accuracy.
Deep research agents conduct multi-step Web searches and synthesise retrieved information into analytical reports. Evaluating these outputs requires checking which analyses they deliver, beyond the presence of relevant facts. Query-specific binary rubrics make individual requirements explicit, but task-level checklists may leave the overall analytical structure underexamined. We introduce RubricAtlas, which derives type-level analytical requirements from expert reports on different objects within the same research type and organises detailed checks around recurring analytical questions. The requirements give related tasks a shared standard for what to analyse, without prescribing their answers. Our framework links binary checkpoints to report passages and evaluates completeness separately from argument validity. Built from 3,079 Chinese financial research reports, RubricAtlas covers 99 research types. Reference-report selection experiments show that individual reports cover only about half of their type's analytical questions, and that selecting requirements from different reports changes evaluation scores and agent rankings. Across ten agents, two judge pipelines achieve checkpoint agreement of $κ$ = 0.71 and agent-ranking agreement of Kendall $τ$ = 0.87. Controlled deletions reduce scores on the affected analyses, while padding produces no detectable increase. These findings support type-level rubrics for comparing the analytical completeness of Web deep research outputs, with individual decisions traceable to report evidence.