Work · Evidence record
Can Interview Notes Be Anonymized Without Losing Useful Context — What the Completed 10/10 Test Found
The completed WFT-036 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Privacy Editing, while 0 checks remained unresolved.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
anonymize employee interview notes while preserving useful context
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-036: A people team will provide synthetic interview notes and a policy covering direct and indirect identifiers. Source facts: fictional notes WFT-036-N01 through WFT-036-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-036-N06/N07. Governing rule card: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. 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.
Run disclosure
We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-036 for “anonymize employee interview notes while preserving useful context” 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-036. Task: anonymize employee interview notes while preserving useful context. Context: A people team will provide synthetic interview notes and a policy covering direct and indirect identifiers. Fictional source facts: fictional notes WFT-036-N01 through WFT-036-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-036-N06/N07. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. 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 source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log. 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: An anonymized set and a hidden-identifier review will verify leakage, over-redaction, and retained meaning.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response WFT-036 produced a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log for the task “anonymize employee interview notes while preserving useful context.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-036-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-036-ROW1 reads: “WFT-036-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-036-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | 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 Privacy Editing task fidelity [WFT-036], Privacy Editing rule accuracy [WFT-036], and Privacy Editing exception handling [WFT-036]. The audit found concrete failures: for Privacy Editing source traceability [WFT-036], the saved draft gave the central WFT-036-N07 decision no source-to-output locator; for Privacy Editing handoff usability [WFT-036], the saved draft left the source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log 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.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-036 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Privacy Editing source traceability [WFT-036] — the draft gave the central WFT-036-N07 decision no source-to-output locator; 2) Privacy Editing handoff usability [WFT-036] — the draft left the source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
Corrected response WFT-036 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-036-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-036-ROW1 reads: “WFT-036-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-036-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | evidence locator: WFT-036-N01 | static status: 10/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Privacy Editing source traceability [WFT-036] and Privacy Editing handoff usability [WFT-036]. The frozen final text passed Privacy Editing task fidelity [WFT-036], Privacy Editing rule accuracy [WFT-036], Privacy Editing exception handling [WFT-036], Privacy Editing source traceability [WFT-036], and Privacy Editing handoff usability [WFT-036]. All five declared dimensions had inspectable support after the one correction. The final source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log therefore earned 10/10 from 5 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: 10/10
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Privacy Editing task fidelity [WFT-036] | Pass | Pass | WFT-036 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Privacy Editing task fidelity [WFT-036].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-036-N07, the declared Privacy Editing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Privacy Editing rule accuracy [WFT-036] | Pass | Pass | WFT-036 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Privacy Editing rule accuracy [WFT-036].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-036-N07, the declared Privacy Editing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Privacy Editing exception handling [WFT-036] | Pass | Pass | WFT-036 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Privacy Editing exception handling [WFT-036].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-036-N07, the declared Privacy Editing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Privacy Editing source traceability [WFT-036] | Fail | Pass | WFT-036 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Privacy Editing source traceability [WFT-036].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-036-N07, the declared Privacy Editing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Privacy Editing handoff usability [WFT-036] | Fail | Pass | WFT-036 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Privacy Editing handoff usability [WFT-036].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-036-N07, the declared Privacy Editing 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-036 kept “anonymize employee interview notes while preserving useful context” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.
- WFT-036 made the central handling—record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-036-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.
- WFT-036 earned final passes for Privacy Editing task fidelity [WFT-036] and Privacy Editing rule accuracy [WFT-036] under the same frozen scoring rules.
What failed or remained weak
- WFT-036’s first draft failed Privacy Editing source traceability [WFT-036]; one correction repaired it, but the initial defect remains part of the published audit trail.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
An anonymized set and a hidden-identifier review will verify leakage, over-redaction, and retained meaning.
- WFT-036 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- WFT-036 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.
- WFT-036 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—An anonymized set and a hidden-identifier review will verify leakage, over-redaction, and retained meaning.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- WFT-036 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Privacy Editing fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- WFT-036 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.