{
  "category": "work",
  "slug": "work-qa-customer-refunds",
  "title": "Which Refund Cases Need Human Review — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10",
  "task": "classify customer refund cases for automatic or human review",
  "excerpt": "The completed WFT-054 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Refund Quality Control, while 1 check remained unresolved.",
  "tool": "Codex multi-agent session",
  "model": "Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-19T16:00:00+08:00",
  "durationMinutes": 0,
  "testMode": "Synthetic benchmark",
  "inputDisclosure": "Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-054: A service team will provide synthetic refund requests, policy clauses, payment histories, fraud indicators, and edge-case exceptions. Source facts: cases WFT-054-R01–R06; amounts $18–$720; delivery evidence; duplicate R04; auto-refund ≤$100 with clear proof; chargeback R06. Governing rule card: amount ceiling, delivery proof, duplication, fraud flags, and chargeback status. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. 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-054 for “classify customer refund cases for automatic or human review” 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-054. Task: classify customer refund cases for automatic or human review. Context: A service team will provide synthetic refund requests, policy clauses, payment histories, fraud indicators, and edge-case exceptions. Fictional source facts: cases WFT-054-R01–R06; amounts $18–$720; delivery evidence; duplicate R04; auto-refund ≤$100 with clear proof; chargeback R06. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: amount ceiling, delivery proof, duplication, fraud flags, and chargeback status. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. Produce a refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue. 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 blinded case key and false-approval and false-escalation matrix will verify every routing decision.",
  "firstResult": "Frozen first response WFT-054 produced a refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue for “classify customer refund cases for automatic or human review.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-054-R04 | auto-approve R01 at $42, route R03 above $100, hold duplicate R04, and send chargeback R06 to review | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named R04’s duplicate identity and R06 chargeback and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified amount ceiling, delivery proof, duplication, fraud flags, and chargeback status. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Refund Quality Control rule accuracy [WFT-054], Refund Quality Control exception handling [WFT-054], and Refund Quality Control source traceability [WFT-054]. It found for Refund Quality Control task fidelity [WFT-054], the draft did not link WFT-054-R04 to the full task boundary; for Refund Quality Control handoff usability [WFT-054], the draft left the refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.",
  "correctionPrompt": "Correct only these detected WFT-054 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Refund Quality Control task fidelity [WFT-054] — the draft did not link WFT-054-R04 to the full task boundary; 2) Refund Quality Control handoff usability [WFT-054] — the draft left the refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.",
  "finalResult": "Corrected response WFT-054 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: auto-approve R01 at $42, route R03 above $100, hold duplicate R04, and send chargeback R06 to review. Its corrected row read “WFT-054-R04 | rule: amount ceiling, delivery proof, duplication, fraud flags, and chargeback status | decision: auto-approve R01 at $42, route R03 above $100, hold duplicate R04, and send chargeback R06 to review | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Refund Quality Control handoff usability [WFT-054]. The final audit passed Refund Quality Control rule accuracy [WFT-054], Refund Quality Control exception handling [WFT-054], Refund Quality Control source traceability [WFT-054], and Refund Quality Control handoff usability [WFT-054]. It still lacked Refund Quality Control task fidelity [WFT-054]; those failures remain visible. The refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.",
  "checks": [
    {
      "name": "Refund Quality Control task fidelity [WFT-054]",
      "firstPass": false,
      "finalPass": false,
      "evidence": "WFT-054 static check 1 inspected “Refund Quality Control task fidelity [WFT-054]” against WFT-054-R04, the rule “amount ceiling, delivery proof, duplication, fraud flags, and chargeback status,” and the saved refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."
    },
    {
      "name": "Refund Quality Control rule accuracy [WFT-054]",
      "firstPass": true,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "WFT-054 static check 2 inspected “Refund Quality Control rule accuracy [WFT-054]” against WFT-054-R04, the rule “amount ceiling, delivery proof, duplication, fraud flags, and chargeback status,” and the saved refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."
    },
    {
      "name": "Refund Quality Control exception handling [WFT-054]",
      "firstPass": true,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "WFT-054 static check 3 inspected “Refund Quality Control exception handling [WFT-054]” against WFT-054-R04, the rule “amount ceiling, delivery proof, duplication, fraud flags, and chargeback status,” and the saved refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."
    },
    {
      "name": "Refund Quality Control source traceability [WFT-054]",
      "firstPass": true,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "WFT-054 static check 4 inspected “Refund Quality Control source traceability [WFT-054]” against WFT-054-R04, the rule “amount ceiling, delivery proof, duplication, fraud flags, and chargeback status,” and the saved refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."
    },
    {
      "name": "Refund Quality Control handoff usability [WFT-054]",
      "firstPass": false,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "WFT-054 static check 5 inspected “Refund Quality Control handoff usability [WFT-054]” against WFT-054-R04, the rule “amount ceiling, delivery proof, duplication, fraud flags, and chargeback status,” and the saved refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."
    }
  ],
  "initialScore": 6,
  "score": 8,
  "verdict": "worked",
  "recommended": true,
  "whatWorked": [
    "WFT-054 bounded “classify customer refund cases for automatic or human review” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.",
    "WFT-054 exposed WFT-054-R04—auto-approve R01 at $42, route R03 above $100, hold duplicate R04, and send chargeback R06 to review—inside the saved refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue.",
    "WFT-054 earned inspectable passes for Refund Quality Control rule accuracy [WFT-054] and Refund Quality Control exception handling [WFT-054] under the unchanged rubric."
  ],
  "whatFailed": [
    "WFT-054 still lacked saved-text evidence for Refund Quality Control task fidelity [WFT-054]; that failure remains published."
  ],
  "evidencePlan": "A blinded case key and false-approval and false-escalation matrix will verify every routing decision.",
  "evidenceNotes": [
    "WFT-054 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.",
    "WFT-054 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.",
    "WFT-054 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A blinded case key and false-approval and false-escalation matrix will verify every routing decision.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."
  ],
  "limitations": [
    "WFT-054 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Refund Quality Control fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.",
    "WFT-054 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."
  ]
}