Work · Evidence record
Mapping a Job Description to a Competency Framework with AI: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction
The completed WFT-015 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Role Design, while 1 check remained unresolved.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
align a job description with a competency framework
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-015: An HR team will provide a legacy job description, a competency framework, and approved role-level language. Source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-015-D01 through WFT-015-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-015-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.
Run disclosure
We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-015 for “align a job description with a competency framework” 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 WFT-015. Task: align a job description with a competency framework. Context: An HR team will provide a legacy job description, a competency framework, and approved role-level language. Fictional source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-015-D01 through WFT-015-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-015-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 revised description and a competency mapping table will verify coverage without adding unsupported requirements.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response WFT-015 produced a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register for the task “align a job description with a competency framework.” 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-015-D04 for review. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-015-ROW1 reads: “WFT-015-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-015-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 Role Design task fidelity [WFT-015], Role Design source traceability [WFT-015], and Role Design handoff usability [WFT-015]. The audit found concrete failures: for Role Design rule accuracy [WFT-015], the saved draft left the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language without an explicit verification row; for Role Design exception handling [WFT-015], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the clause-6.2 exception and conflicting definition in WFT-015-D04. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.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 WFT-015 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Role Design rule accuracy [WFT-015] — the draft left the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language without an explicit verification row; 2) Role Design exception handling [WFT-015] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the clause-6.2 exception and conflicting definition in WFT-015-D04.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
Corrected response WFT-015 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-015-D04 for review. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-015-ROW1 reads: “WFT-015-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-015-D04 for review | evidence locator: WFT-015-D01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Role Design rule accuracy [WFT-015]. The frozen final text passed Role Design task fidelity [WFT-015], Role Design rule accuracy [WFT-015], Role Design source traceability [WFT-015], and Role Design handoff usability [WFT-015] and still failed Role Design exception handling [WFT-015]. 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.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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Role Design task fidelity [WFT-015] | Pass | Pass | WFT-015 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Role Design task fidelity [WFT-015].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-015-D04, the declared Role Design rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Role Design rule accuracy [WFT-015] | Fail | Pass | WFT-015 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Role Design rule accuracy [WFT-015].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-015-D04, the declared Role Design rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Role Design exception handling [WFT-015] | Fail | Fail | WFT-015 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Role Design exception handling [WFT-015].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-015-D04, the declared Role Design rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Role Design source traceability [WFT-015] | Pass | Pass | WFT-015 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Role Design source traceability [WFT-015].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-015-D04, the declared Role Design rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Role Design handoff usability [WFT-015] | Pass | Pass | WFT-015 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Role Design handoff usability [WFT-015].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-015-D04, the declared Role Design rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
08 · No cleanup by omission
What worked—and what failed
What worked
- WFT-015 kept “align a job description with a competency framework” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.
- WFT-015 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-015-D04 for review—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.
- WFT-015 earned final passes for Role Design task fidelity [WFT-015] and Role Design rule accuracy [WFT-015] under the same frozen scoring rules.
What failed or remained weak
- WFT-015 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Role Design exception handling [WFT-015]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A revised description and a competency mapping table will verify coverage without adding unsupported requirements.
- WFT-015 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- WFT-015 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.
- WFT-015 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A revised description and a competency mapping table will verify coverage without adding unsupported requirements.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- WFT-015 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Role Design fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- WFT-015 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.