{
  "category": "work",
  "slug": "work-structure-project-brief",
  "title": "Turning Scattered Stakeholder Notes into a Usable Project Brief: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10",
  "task": "turn scattered stakeholder notes into a usable project brief",
  "excerpt": "The completed WFT-029 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Project Scoping, while 1 check remained unresolved.",
  "tool": "Codex multi-agent session",
  "model": "Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-12T17:00:00+08:00",
  "durationMinutes": 0,
  "testMode": "Synthetic benchmark",
  "inputDisclosure": "Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-029: A project sponsor will provide emails, meeting notes, constraints, and unresolved questions for a proposed initiative. Source facts: notes WFT-029-P01–P09; goal reduce response time 20%; budget $75k; Q4 launch; mobile app marked out of scope; data-migration owner missing. Governing rule card: goals, measures, scope, constraints, owner, and source note stay distinct. 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-029 for “turn scattered stakeholder notes into a usable project brief” 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-029. Task: turn scattered stakeholder notes into a usable project brief. Context: A project sponsor will provide emails, meeting notes, constraints, and unresolved questions for a proposed initiative. Fictional source facts: notes WFT-029-P01–P09; goal reduce response time 20%; budget $75k; Q4 launch; mobile app marked out of scope; data-migration owner missing. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: goals, measures, scope, constraints, owner, and source note stay distinct. 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 project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table. 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 structured brief with source links and a stakeholder checklist will verify requirements, assumptions, and open issues.",
  "firstResult": "Frozen first response WFT-029 produced a project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table for “turn scattered stakeholder notes into a usable project brief.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-029-P07 | state the 20% goal, $75k cap, and Q4 target; exclude the mobile app; and flag data-migration ownership | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the mobile-app scope conflict and ownerless data migration and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified goals, measures, scope, constraints, owner, and source note stay distinct. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Project Scoping rule accuracy [WFT-029], Project Scoping exception handling [WFT-029], and Project Scoping source traceability [WFT-029]. It found for Project Scoping task fidelity [WFT-029], the draft did not link WFT-029-P07 to the full task boundary; for Project Scoping handoff usability [WFT-029], the draft left the project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table 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-029 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Project Scoping task fidelity [WFT-029] — the draft did not link WFT-029-P07 to the full task boundary; 2) Project Scoping handoff usability [WFT-029] — the draft left the project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.",
  "finalResult": "Corrected response WFT-029 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: state the 20% goal, $75k cap, and Q4 target; exclude the mobile app; and flag data-migration ownership. Its corrected row read “WFT-029-P07 | rule: goals, measures, scope, constraints, owner, and source note stay distinct | decision: state the 20% goal, $75k cap, and Q4 target; exclude the mobile app; and flag data-migration ownership | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Project Scoping handoff usability [WFT-029]. The final audit passed Project Scoping rule accuracy [WFT-029], Project Scoping exception handling [WFT-029], Project Scoping source traceability [WFT-029], and Project Scoping handoff usability [WFT-029]. It still lacked Project Scoping task fidelity [WFT-029]; those failures remain visible. The project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table 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": "Project Scoping task fidelity [WFT-029]",
      "firstPass": false,
      "finalPass": false,
      "evidence": "WFT-029 static check 1 inspected “Project Scoping task fidelity [WFT-029]” against WFT-029-P07, the rule “goals, measures, scope, constraints, owner, and source note stay distinct,” and the saved project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."
    },
    {
      "name": "Project Scoping rule accuracy [WFT-029]",
      "firstPass": true,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "WFT-029 static check 2 inspected “Project Scoping rule accuracy [WFT-029]” against WFT-029-P07, the rule “goals, measures, scope, constraints, owner, and source note stay distinct,” and the saved project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."
    },
    {
      "name": "Project Scoping exception handling [WFT-029]",
      "firstPass": true,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "WFT-029 static check 3 inspected “Project Scoping exception handling [WFT-029]” against WFT-029-P07, the rule “goals, measures, scope, constraints, owner, and source note stay distinct,” and the saved project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."
    },
    {
      "name": "Project Scoping source traceability [WFT-029]",
      "firstPass": true,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "WFT-029 static check 4 inspected “Project Scoping source traceability [WFT-029]” against WFT-029-P07, the rule “goals, measures, scope, constraints, owner, and source note stay distinct,” and the saved project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."
    },
    {
      "name": "Project Scoping handoff usability [WFT-029]",
      "firstPass": false,
      "finalPass": true,
      "evidence": "WFT-029 static check 5 inspected “Project Scoping handoff usability [WFT-029]” against WFT-029-P07, the rule “goals, measures, scope, constraints, owner, and source note stay distinct,” and the saved project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table. 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-029 bounded “turn scattered stakeholder notes into a usable project brief” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.",
    "WFT-029 exposed WFT-029-P07—state the 20% goal, $75k cap, and Q4 target; exclude the mobile app; and flag data-migration ownership—inside the saved project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table.",
    "WFT-029 earned inspectable passes for Project Scoping rule accuracy [WFT-029] and Project Scoping exception handling [WFT-029] under the unchanged rubric."
  ],
  "whatFailed": [
    "WFT-029 still lacked saved-text evidence for Project Scoping task fidelity [WFT-029]; that failure remains published."
  ],
  "evidencePlan": "A structured brief with source links and a stakeholder checklist will verify requirements, assumptions, and open issues.",
  "evidenceNotes": [
    "WFT-029 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.",
    "WFT-029 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.",
    "WFT-029 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A structured brief with source links and a stakeholder checklist will verify requirements, assumptions, and open issues.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."
  ],
  "limitations": [
    "WFT-029 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Project Scoping fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.",
    "WFT-029 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."
  ]
}