{
  "category": "work",
  "slug": "work-extract-vendor-obligations",
  "title": "Extracting Vendor Obligations into a Traceable Register: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction",
  "task": "extract operational obligations from vendor agreements",
  "excerpt": "The completed WFT-023 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Contract Obligations, while 1 check remained unresolved.",
  "tool": "Codex multi-agent session",
  "model": "Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-22T08:00:00+08:00",
  "durationMinutes": 0,
  "testMode": "Synthetic benchmark",
  "inputDisclosure": "Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-023: A vendor management team will supply agreements containing notice periods, service duties, reporting dates, and escalation terms. Source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-023-D01 through WFT-023-D05; clauses 2.1, 3.4, 6.2, and 8.7; effective dates 2026-09-01 and 2026-10-15; one defined-term conflict in WFT-023-D04; and a mandatory exception in clause 6.2. Governing rule card: the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. 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-023 for “extract operational obligations from vendor agreements” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 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-023. Task: extract operational obligations from vendor agreements. Context: A vendor management team will supply agreements containing notice periods, service duties, reporting dates, and escalation terms. Fictional source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-023-D01 through WFT-023-D05; clauses 2.1, 3.4, 6.2, and 8.7; effective dates 2026-09-01 and 2026-10-15; one defined-term conflict in WFT-023-D04; and a mandatory exception in clause 6.2. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. Produce a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register. 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: An obligation register with clause references and legal-operations review will verify each extracted duty.",
  "firstResult": "Frozen first response WFT-023 produced a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register for the task “extract operational obligations from vendor agreements.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-023-D04 for review. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-023-ROW1 reads: “WFT-023-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-023-D04 for review | 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 Contract Obligations task fidelity [WFT-023], Contract Obligations rule accuracy [WFT-023], and Contract Obligations handoff usability [WFT-023]. The audit found concrete failures: for Contract Obligations exception handling [WFT-023], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the clause-6.2 exception and conflicting definition in WFT-023-D04; for Contract Obligations source traceability [WFT-023], the saved draft gave the central WFT-023-D04 decision no source-to-output locator. 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-023 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Contract Obligations exception handling [WFT-023] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the clause-6.2 exception and conflicting definition in WFT-023-D04; 2) Contract Obligations source traceability [WFT-023] — the draft gave the central WFT-023-D04 decision no source-to-output locator.",
  "finalResult": "Corrected response WFT-023 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-023-D04 for review. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-023-ROW1 reads: “WFT-023-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-023-D04 for review | evidence locator: WFT-023-D01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Contract Obligations exception handling [WFT-023]. The frozen final text passed Contract Obligations task fidelity [WFT-023], Contract Obligations rule accuracy [WFT-023], Contract Obligations exception handling [WFT-023], and Contract Obligations handoff usability [WFT-023] and still failed Contract Obligations source traceability [WFT-023]. The final clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register therefore earned 8/10 from 4 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": "Contract Obligations task fidelity [WFT-023]",
      "firstPass": true,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "WFT-023 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Contract Obligations task fidelity [WFT-023].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-023-D04, the declared Contract Obligations rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    },
    {
      "name": "Contract Obligations rule accuracy [WFT-023]",
      "firstPass": true,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "WFT-023 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Contract Obligations rule accuracy [WFT-023].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-023-D04, the declared Contract Obligations rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    },
    {
      "name": "Contract Obligations exception handling [WFT-023]",
      "firstPass": false,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "WFT-023 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Contract Obligations exception handling [WFT-023].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-023-D04, the declared Contract Obligations rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    },
    {
      "name": "Contract Obligations source traceability [WFT-023]",
      "firstPass": false,
      "finalPass": false,
      "evidence": "WFT-023 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Contract Obligations source traceability [WFT-023].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-023-D04, the declared Contract Obligations rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    },
    {
      "name": "Contract Obligations handoff usability [WFT-023]",
      "firstPass": true,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "WFT-023 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Contract Obligations handoff usability [WFT-023].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-023-D04, the declared Contract Obligations rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    }
  ],
  "initialScore": 6,
  "score": 8,
  "verdict": "worked",
  "recommended": true,
  "whatWorked": [
    "WFT-023 kept “extract operational obligations from vendor agreements” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.",
    "WFT-023 made the central handling—trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-023-D04 for review—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.",
    "WFT-023 earned final passes for Contract Obligations task fidelity [WFT-023] and Contract Obligations rule accuracy [WFT-023] under the same frozen scoring rules."
  ],
  "whatFailed": [
    "WFT-023 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Contract Obligations source traceability [WFT-023]; the record leaves that final failure visible."
  ],
  "evidencePlan": "An obligation register with clause references and legal-operations review will verify each extracted duty.",
  "evidenceNotes": [
    "WFT-023 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.",
    "WFT-023 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.",
    "WFT-023 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—An obligation register with clause references and legal-operations review will verify each extracted duty.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."
  ],
  "limitations": [
    "WFT-023 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Contract Obligations fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.",
    "WFT-023 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."
  ]
}