Work · Evidence record
An AI Project Plan Built Around Tasks, Dependencies, and Staffing Limits — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10
The completed WFT-010 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
build a project plan from tasks and dependencies
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-010: A project manager will supply task durations, dependencies, staffing limits, and a target delivery date. Source facts: records WFT-010-R01 through WFT-010-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 22 and 36; dependency WFT-010-R04 after WFT-010-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-010-R05. Governing rule card: the two window limits (22 and 36). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. 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-010 for “build a project plan from tasks and dependencies” 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-010. Task: build a project plan from tasks and dependencies. Context: A project manager will supply task durations, dependencies, staffing limits, and a target delivery date. Fictional source facts: records WFT-010-R01 through WFT-010-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 22 and 36; dependency WFT-010-R04 after WFT-010-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-010-R05. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the two window limits (22 and 36). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. Produce a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception 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 dated plan and an independent dependency check will verify sequencing, milestones, and resource conflicts.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response WFT-010 produced a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register for the task “build a project plan from tasks and dependencies.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: keep WFT-010-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-010-R04 only after WFT-010-R02, and flag the second window when demand 36 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-010-ROW1 reads: “WFT-010-R01 | keep WFT-010-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-010-R04 only after WFT-010-R02, and flag the second window when demand 36 exceeds the stated capacity | 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 Project Planning task fidelity [WFT-010], Project Planning source traceability [WFT-010], and Project Planning handoff usability [WFT-010]. The audit found concrete failures: for Project Planning rule accuracy [WFT-010], the saved draft left the two window limits (22 and 36) without an explicit verification row; for Project Planning exception handling [WFT-010], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the WFT-010-R05 availability exception and the WFT-010-R02→R04 dependency. 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-010 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Project Planning rule accuracy [WFT-010] — the draft left the two window limits (22 and 36) without an explicit verification row; 2) Project Planning exception handling [WFT-010] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the WFT-010-R05 availability exception and the WFT-010-R02→R04 dependency.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
Corrected response WFT-010 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: keep WFT-010-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-010-R04 only after WFT-010-R02, and flag the second window when demand 36 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-010-ROW1 reads: “WFT-010-R01 | keep WFT-010-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-010-R04 only after WFT-010-R02, and flag the second window when demand 36 exceeds the stated capacity | evidence locator: WFT-010-R01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Project Planning rule accuracy [WFT-010]. The frozen final text passed Project Planning task fidelity [WFT-010], Project Planning rule accuracy [WFT-010], Project Planning source traceability [WFT-010], and Project Planning handoff usability [WFT-010] and still failed Project Planning exception handling [WFT-010]. The final constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project Planning task fidelity [WFT-010] | Pass | Pass | WFT-010 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Project Planning task fidelity [WFT-010].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-010-R05, the declared Project Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Project Planning rule accuracy [WFT-010] | Fail | Pass | WFT-010 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Project Planning rule accuracy [WFT-010].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-010-R05, the declared Project Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Project Planning exception handling [WFT-010] | Fail | Fail | WFT-010 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Project Planning exception handling [WFT-010].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-010-R05, the declared Project Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Project Planning source traceability [WFT-010] | Pass | Pass | WFT-010 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Project Planning source traceability [WFT-010].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-010-R05, the declared Project Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Project Planning handoff usability [WFT-010] | Pass | Pass | WFT-010 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Project Planning handoff usability [WFT-010].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-010-R05, the declared Project Planning 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-010 kept “build a project plan from tasks and dependencies” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.
- WFT-010 made the central handling—keep WFT-010-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-010-R04 only after WFT-010-R02, and flag the second window when demand 36 exceeds the stated capacity—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.
- WFT-010 earned final passes for Project Planning task fidelity [WFT-010] and Project Planning rule accuracy [WFT-010] under the same frozen scoring rules.
What failed or remained weak
- WFT-010 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Project Planning exception handling [WFT-010]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A dated plan and an independent dependency check will verify sequencing, milestones, and resource conflicts.
- WFT-010 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- WFT-010 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.
- WFT-010 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A dated plan and an independent dependency check will verify sequencing, milestones, and resource conflicts.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- WFT-010 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.
- WFT-010 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.