{
  "category": "work",
  "slug": "work-assemble-incident-timeline",
  "title": "Building an Incident Timeline from Conflicting Records — Three of Five Checks Passed",
  "task": "assemble an incident timeline from conflicting records",
  "excerpt": "The completed WFT-026 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Incident Review checks passed after one correction, but Incident Review source traceability [WFT-026] and Incident Review handoff usability [WFT-026] remained unsupported.",
  "tool": "Codex multi-agent session",
  "model": "Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-19T18:00:00+08:00",
  "durationMinutes": 0,
  "testMode": "Synthetic benchmark",
  "inputDisclosure": "Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-026: An incident team will provide timestamped alerts, chat excerpts, change records, and operator notes with known inconsistencies. Source facts: fictional notes WFT-026-N01 through WFT-026-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-026-N06/N07. Governing rule card: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.",
  "runDisclosure": "We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-026 for “assemble an incident timeline from conflicting records” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.",
  "prompt": "Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-026. Task: assemble an incident timeline from conflicting records. Context: An incident team will provide timestamped alerts, chat excerpts, change records, and operator notes with known inconsistencies. Fictional source facts: fictional notes WFT-026-N01 through WFT-026-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-026-N06/N07. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. Produce a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A sourced chronology and a timestamp reconciliation will verify ordering, uncertainty, and unresolved conflicts.",
  "firstResult": "Frozen first response WFT-026 produced a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log for the task “assemble an incident timeline from conflicting records.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-026-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-026-ROW1 reads: “WFT-026-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-026-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Incident Review task fidelity [WFT-026] and Incident Review rule accuracy [WFT-026]. The audit found concrete failures: for Incident Review exception handling [WFT-026], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the tentative N05 statement and the WFT-026-N06/N07 contradiction; for Incident Review source traceability [WFT-026], the saved draft gave the central WFT-026-N07 decision no source-to-output locator; for Incident Review handoff usability [WFT-026], the saved draft left the source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.",
  "correctionPrompt": "Correct only these detected WFT-026 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Incident Review exception handling [WFT-026] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the tentative N05 statement and the WFT-026-N06/N07 contradiction; 2) Incident Review source traceability [WFT-026] — the draft gave the central WFT-026-N07 decision no source-to-output locator; 3) Incident Review handoff usability [WFT-026] — the draft left the source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.",
  "finalResult": "Corrected response WFT-026 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-026-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-026-ROW1 reads: “WFT-026-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-026-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | evidence locator: WFT-026-N01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Incident Review exception handling [WFT-026]. The frozen final text passed Incident Review task fidelity [WFT-026], Incident Review rule accuracy [WFT-026], and Incident Review exception handling [WFT-026] and still failed Incident Review source traceability [WFT-026] and Incident Review handoff usability [WFT-026]. The final source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log therefore earned 6/10 from 3 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.",
  "checks": [
    {
      "name": "Incident Review task fidelity [WFT-026]",
      "firstPass": true,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "WFT-026 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Incident Review task fidelity [WFT-026].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-026-N07, the declared Incident Review rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    },
    {
      "name": "Incident Review rule accuracy [WFT-026]",
      "firstPass": true,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "WFT-026 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Incident Review rule accuracy [WFT-026].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-026-N07, the declared Incident Review rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    },
    {
      "name": "Incident Review exception handling [WFT-026]",
      "firstPass": false,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "WFT-026 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Incident Review exception handling [WFT-026].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-026-N07, the declared Incident Review rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    },
    {
      "name": "Incident Review source traceability [WFT-026]",
      "firstPass": false,
      "finalPass": false,
      "evidence": "WFT-026 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Incident Review source traceability [WFT-026].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-026-N07, the declared Incident Review rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    },
    {
      "name": "Incident Review handoff usability [WFT-026]",
      "firstPass": false,
      "finalPass": false,
      "evidence": "WFT-026 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Incident Review handoff usability [WFT-026].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-026-N07, the declared Incident Review rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    }
  ],
  "initialScore": 4,
  "score": 6,
  "verdict": "mixed",
  "recommended": false,
  "whatWorked": [
    "WFT-026 kept “assemble an incident timeline from conflicting records” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.",
    "WFT-026 made the central handling—record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-026-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.",
    "WFT-026 earned final passes for Incident Review task fidelity [WFT-026] and Incident Review rule accuracy [WFT-026] under the same frozen scoring rules."
  ],
  "whatFailed": [
    "WFT-026 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Incident Review source traceability [WFT-026]; the record leaves that final failure visible.",
    "WFT-026 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Incident Review handoff usability [WFT-026]; the record leaves that final failure visible."
  ],
  "evidencePlan": "A sourced chronology and a timestamp reconciliation will verify ordering, uncertainty, and unresolved conflicts.",
  "evidenceNotes": [
    "WFT-026 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.",
    "WFT-026 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.",
    "WFT-026 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A sourced chronology and a timestamp reconciliation will verify ordering, uncertainty, and unresolved conflicts.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."
  ],
  "limitations": [
    "WFT-026 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Incident Review fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.",
    "WFT-026 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."
  ]
}