Work · Evidence record
From Meeting Transcript to Action Register with AI: A Failed Synthetic Benchmark at 4/10
The completed WFT-007 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Meeting Actions checks passed after the permitted correction.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
capture decisions, owners, and deadlines from a project meeting
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-007: A project team will supply a meeting transcript containing decisions, tentative ideas, and assigned actions. Source facts: fictional notes WFT-007-N01 through WFT-007-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-007-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-007 for “capture decisions, owners, and deadlines from a project meeting” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 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-007. Task: capture decisions, owners, and deadlines from a project meeting. Context: A project team will supply a meeting transcript containing decisions, tentative ideas, and assigned actions. Fictional source facts: fictional notes WFT-007-N01 through WFT-007-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-007-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 action register with transcript references and participant review will verify each extracted commitment.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response WFT-007 produced a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log for the task “capture decisions, owners, and deadlines from a project meeting.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-007-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-007-ROW1 reads: “WFT-007-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-007-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 Meeting Actions exception handling [WFT-007]. The audit found concrete failures: for Meeting Actions task fidelity [WFT-007], the saved draft did not connect WFT-007-N07 to the full boundary of “capture decisions, owners, and deadlines from a project meeting”; for Meeting Actions rule accuracy [WFT-007], the saved draft left the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements without an explicit verification row; for Meeting Actions source traceability [WFT-007], the saved draft gave the central WFT-007-N07 decision no source-to-output locator; for Meeting Actions handoff usability [WFT-007], 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: 2/10
05 · One pass only
Exact correction prompt
Only this single correction was allowed; there was no second repair pass.
Correct only these detected WFT-007 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Meeting Actions task fidelity [WFT-007] — the draft did not connect WFT-007-N07 to the full boundary of “capture decisions, owners, and deadlines from a project meeting”; 2) Meeting Actions rule accuracy [WFT-007] — the draft left the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements without an explicit verification row; 3) Meeting Actions source traceability [WFT-007] — the draft gave the central WFT-007-N07 decision no source-to-output locator; 4) Meeting Actions handoff usability [WFT-007] — 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-007 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-007-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-007-ROW1 reads: “WFT-007-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-007-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | evidence locator: WFT-007-N01 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Meeting Actions source traceability [WFT-007]. The frozen final text passed Meeting Actions exception handling [WFT-007] and Meeting Actions source traceability [WFT-007] and still failed Meeting Actions task fidelity [WFT-007], Meeting Actions rule accuracy [WFT-007], and Meeting Actions handoff usability [WFT-007]. The final source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log therefore earned 4/10 from 2 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: 4/10
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meeting Actions task fidelity [WFT-007] | Fail | Fail | WFT-007 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Meeting Actions task fidelity [WFT-007].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-007-N07, the declared Meeting Actions rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Meeting Actions rule accuracy [WFT-007] | Fail | Fail | WFT-007 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Meeting Actions rule accuracy [WFT-007].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-007-N07, the declared Meeting Actions rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Meeting Actions exception handling [WFT-007] | Pass | Pass | WFT-007 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Meeting Actions exception handling [WFT-007].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-007-N07, the declared Meeting Actions rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Meeting Actions source traceability [WFT-007] | Fail | Pass | WFT-007 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Meeting Actions source traceability [WFT-007].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-007-N07, the declared Meeting Actions rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Meeting Actions handoff usability [WFT-007] | Fail | Fail | WFT-007 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Meeting Actions handoff usability [WFT-007].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-007-N07, the declared Meeting Actions 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-007 kept “capture decisions, owners, and deadlines from a project meeting” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.
- WFT-007 made the central handling—record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-007-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.
What failed or remained weak
- WFT-007 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Meeting Actions task fidelity [WFT-007]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
- WFT-007 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Meeting Actions rule accuracy [WFT-007]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
- WFT-007 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Meeting Actions handoff usability [WFT-007]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
An action register with transcript references and participant review will verify each extracted commitment.
- WFT-007 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- WFT-007 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.
- WFT-007 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—An action register with transcript references and participant review will verify each extracted commitment.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- WFT-007 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Meeting Actions fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- WFT-007 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.