{
  "category": "work",
  "slug": "work-map-contract-obligations",
  "title": "Mapping Contract Obligations to Owners and Deadlines with AI: A Failed Synthetic Benchmark at 4/10",
  "task": "map contract obligations to accountable owners and deadlines",
  "excerpt": "The completed WFT-055 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Obligation Mapping checks passed after the permitted correction.",
  "tool": "Codex multi-agent session",
  "model": "Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-08T12:00:00+08:00",
  "durationMinutes": 0,
  "testMode": "Synthetic benchmark",
  "inputDisclosure": "Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-055: A legal operations team will provide a synthetic agreement, department roster, notice periods, dependencies, and recurring commitments. Source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-055-D01 through WFT-055-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-055-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-055 for “map contract obligations to accountable owners and deadlines” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 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-055. Task: map contract obligations to accountable owners and deadlines. Context: A legal operations team will provide a synthetic agreement, department roster, notice periods, dependencies, and recurring commitments. Fictional source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-055-D01 through WFT-055-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-055-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: A clause-cited obligation register will be checked for omitted duties, incorrect dates, owner coverage, and recurring triggers.",
  "firstResult": "Frozen first response WFT-055 produced a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register for the task “map contract obligations to accountable owners and deadlines.” 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-055-D04 for review. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-055-ROW1 reads: “WFT-055-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-055-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 Obligation Mapping source traceability [WFT-055]. The audit found concrete failures: for Obligation Mapping task fidelity [WFT-055], the saved draft did not connect WFT-055-D04 to the full boundary of “map contract obligations to accountable owners and deadlines”; for Obligation Mapping rule accuracy [WFT-055], the saved draft left the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language without an explicit verification row; for Obligation Mapping exception handling [WFT-055], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the clause-6.2 exception and conflicting definition in WFT-055-D04; for Obligation Mapping handoff usability [WFT-055], the saved draft left the clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register 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-055 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Obligation Mapping task fidelity [WFT-055] — the draft did not connect WFT-055-D04 to the full boundary of “map contract obligations to accountable owners and deadlines”; 2) Obligation Mapping rule accuracy [WFT-055] — the draft left the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language without an explicit verification row; 3) Obligation Mapping exception handling [WFT-055] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the clause-6.2 exception and conflicting definition in WFT-055-D04; 4) Obligation Mapping handoff usability [WFT-055] — the draft left the clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.",
  "finalResult": "Corrected response WFT-055 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-055-D04 for review. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-055-ROW1 reads: “WFT-055-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-055-D04 for review | evidence locator: WFT-055-D01 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Obligation Mapping handoff usability [WFT-055]. The frozen final text passed Obligation Mapping source traceability [WFT-055] and Obligation Mapping handoff usability [WFT-055] and still failed Obligation Mapping task fidelity [WFT-055], Obligation Mapping rule accuracy [WFT-055], and Obligation Mapping exception handling [WFT-055]. The final clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register therefore earned 4/10 from 2 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": "Obligation Mapping task fidelity [WFT-055]",
      "firstPass": false,
      "finalPass": false,
      "evidence": "WFT-055 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Obligation Mapping task fidelity [WFT-055].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-055-D04, the declared Obligation Mapping rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    },
    {
      "name": "Obligation Mapping rule accuracy [WFT-055]",
      "firstPass": false,
      "finalPass": false,
      "evidence": "WFT-055 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Obligation Mapping rule accuracy [WFT-055].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-055-D04, the declared Obligation Mapping rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    },
    {
      "name": "Obligation Mapping exception handling [WFT-055]",
      "firstPass": false,
      "finalPass": false,
      "evidence": "WFT-055 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Obligation Mapping exception handling [WFT-055].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-055-D04, the declared Obligation Mapping rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    },
    {
      "name": "Obligation Mapping source traceability [WFT-055]",
      "firstPass": true,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "WFT-055 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Obligation Mapping source traceability [WFT-055].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-055-D04, the declared Obligation Mapping rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    },
    {
      "name": "Obligation Mapping handoff usability [WFT-055]",
      "firstPass": false,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "WFT-055 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Obligation Mapping handoff usability [WFT-055].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-055-D04, the declared Obligation Mapping rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."
    }
  ],
  "initialScore": 2,
  "score": 4,
  "verdict": "failed",
  "recommended": false,
  "whatWorked": [
    "WFT-055 kept “map contract obligations to accountable owners and deadlines” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.",
    "WFT-055 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-055-D04 for review—inspectable rather than implying unseen work."
  ],
  "whatFailed": [
    "WFT-055 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Obligation Mapping task fidelity [WFT-055]; the record leaves that final failure visible.",
    "WFT-055 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Obligation Mapping rule accuracy [WFT-055]; the record leaves that final failure visible.",
    "WFT-055 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Obligation Mapping exception handling [WFT-055]; the record leaves that final failure visible."
  ],
  "evidencePlan": "A clause-cited obligation register will be checked for omitted duties, incorrect dates, owner coverage, and recurring triggers.",
  "evidenceNotes": [
    "WFT-055 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.",
    "WFT-055 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.",
    "WFT-055 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A clause-cited obligation register will be checked for omitted duties, incorrect dates, owner coverage, and recurring triggers.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."
  ],
  "limitations": [
    "WFT-055 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Obligation Mapping fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.",
    "WFT-055 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."
  ]
}