Learning · Evidence record
Turning a Capstone Idea into Accountable Milestones with AI: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10
The completed LFT-045 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Project planning, while 1 check remained unresolved.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
turn a capstone idea into accountable milestones
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-045: A final-year student will break a capstone proposal into dependencies, deliverables, review points, and contingency time. Source facts: idea LFT-045-C01 urban heat mapping; due 2026-12-01; ethics before interviews; dataset by 2026-09-20; map before analysis; four hours weekly. Governing rule card: each milestone has owner, date, predecessor, deliverable, and acceptance condition. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. 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.
Run disclosure
We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-045 for “turn a capstone idea into accountable milestones” 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.
- Evidence mode
- Synthetic benchmark
- Run environment
- Codex multi-agent session
- Model disclosure
- Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session
03 · Verbatim input
Exact first prompt
The recorded session received the following prompt without silent additions.
Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-045. Task: turn a capstone idea into accountable milestones. Context: A final-year student will break a capstone proposal into dependencies, deliverables, review points, and contingency time. Fictional source facts: idea LFT-045-C01 urban heat mapping; due 2026-12-01; ethics before interviews; dataset by 2026-09-20; map before analysis; four hours weekly. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: each milestone has owner, date, predecessor, deliverable, and acceptance condition. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. Produce a capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist. 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 supervisor will inspect the milestone map against course deadlines, dependencies, and required deliverables.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response LFT-045 produced a capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist for “turn a capstone idea into accountable milestones.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-045-C01 | place ethics first, acquire data by 09-20, draft map before analysis, and reserve November for validation/writing | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named ethics-before-interviews and the four-hour weekly cap and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified each milestone has owner, date, predecessor, deliverable, and acceptance condition. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Project planning objective fit [LFT-045], Project planning content accuracy [LFT-045], and Project planning learner adaptation [LFT-045]. It found for Project planning evidence traceability [LFT-045], the draft gave LFT-045-C01 no source locator; for Project planning safety and access [LFT-045], the draft left the capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.Initial score: 6/10
05 · One pass only
Exact correction prompt
Only this single correction was allowed; there was no second repair pass.
Correct only these detected LFT-045 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Project planning evidence traceability [LFT-045] — the draft gave LFT-045-C01 no source locator; 2) Project planning safety and access [LFT-045] — the draft left the capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
Corrected response LFT-045 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: place ethics first, acquire data by 09-20, draft map before analysis, and reserve November for validation/writing. Its corrected row read “LFT-045-C01 | rule: each milestone has owner, date, predecessor, deliverable, and acceptance condition | decision: place ethics first, acquire data by 09-20, draft map before analysis, and reserve November for validation/writing | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Project planning evidence traceability [LFT-045]. The final audit passed Project planning objective fit [LFT-045], Project planning content accuracy [LFT-045], Project planning learner adaptation [LFT-045], and Project planning evidence traceability [LFT-045]. It still lacked Project planning safety and access [LFT-045]; those failures remain visible. The capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist 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.Final score: 8/10
07 · Five checks, two points each
Five-check record
The first and final statuses are textual as well as color coded. Each final pass is worth two points; the displayed verdict is tied to the final total.
| Check | First | Final | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project planning objective fit [LFT-045] | Pass | Pass | LFT-045 static check 1 inspected “Project planning objective fit [LFT-045]” against LFT-045-C01, the rule “each milestone has owner, date, predecessor, deliverable, and acceptance condition,” and the saved capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
| Project planning content accuracy [LFT-045] | Pass | Pass | LFT-045 static check 2 inspected “Project planning content accuracy [LFT-045]” against LFT-045-C01, the rule “each milestone has owner, date, predecessor, deliverable, and acceptance condition,” and the saved capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
| Project planning learner adaptation [LFT-045] | Pass | Pass | LFT-045 static check 3 inspected “Project planning learner adaptation [LFT-045]” against LFT-045-C01, the rule “each milestone has owner, date, predecessor, deliverable, and acceptance condition,” and the saved capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
| Project planning evidence traceability [LFT-045] | Fail | Pass | LFT-045 static check 4 inspected “Project planning evidence traceability [LFT-045]” against LFT-045-C01, the rule “each milestone has owner, date, predecessor, deliverable, and acceptance condition,” and the saved capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
| Project planning safety and access [LFT-045] | Fail | Fail | LFT-045 static check 5 inspected “Project planning safety and access [LFT-045]” against LFT-045-C01, the rule “each milestone has owner, date, predecessor, deliverable, and acceptance condition,” and the saved capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
08 · No cleanup by omission
What worked—and what failed
What worked
- LFT-045 bounded “turn a capstone idea into accountable milestones” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.
- LFT-045 exposed LFT-045-C01—place ethics first, acquire data by 09-20, draft map before analysis, and reserve November for validation/writing—inside the saved capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist.
- LFT-045 earned inspectable passes for Project planning objective fit [LFT-045] and Project planning content accuracy [LFT-045] under the unchanged rubric.
What failed or remained weak
- LFT-045 still lacked saved-text evidence for Project planning safety and access [LFT-045]; that failure remains published.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A supervisor will inspect the milestone map against course deadlines, dependencies, and required deliverables.
- LFT-045 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- LFT-045 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.
- LFT-045 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A supervisor will inspect the milestone map against course deadlines, dependencies, and required deliverables.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- LFT-045 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Project planning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- LFT-045 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.