Work · Evidence record
Creating Preventive Maintenance Work Orders from Equipment Manuals with AI: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction
The completed WFT-047 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Maintenance Planning, while 1 check remained unresolved.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
create preventive maintenance work orders from equipment manuals
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-047: A facilities team will provide equipment manuals, asset details, service intervals, and site access constraints. Source facts: assets WFT-047-M01–M07; failure risks 2–9; downtime 1–14 hours; costs $80–$4,800; M03 safety-critical; M06 awaiting part; intervals 250/500 hours. Governing rule card: risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status. Safety holds and access closures are mandatory; never exceed capacity; honor skill, cutoff, and handling constraints; cover each eligible item at most once. 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-047 for “create preventive maintenance work orders from equipment manuals” 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-047. Task: create preventive maintenance work orders from equipment manuals. Context: A facilities team will provide equipment manuals, asset details, service intervals, and site access constraints. Fictional source facts: assets WFT-047-M01–M07; failure risks 2–9; downtime 1–14 hours; costs $80–$4,800; M03 safety-critical; M06 awaiting part; intervals 250/500 hours. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status. Safety holds and access closures are mandatory; never exceed capacity; honor skill, cutoff, and handling constraints; cover each eligible item at most once. Produce a ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral 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: A work-order set with manual references and interval checks will verify tasks, parts, timing, and safety steps.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response WFT-047 produced a ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log for “create preventive maintenance work orders from equipment manuals.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-047-M03 | rank M03 first, create M02’s 500-hour service, defer M06 awaiting part, and keep low-risk M05 below blocker M01 | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named M03’s safety risk and M06’s unavailable part and recorded a disposition. The rule cell mentioned without verifying risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Maintenance Planning exception handling [WFT-047], Maintenance Planning source traceability [WFT-047], and Maintenance Planning handoff usability [WFT-047]. It found for Maintenance Planning task fidelity [WFT-047], the draft did not link WFT-047-M03 to the full task boundary; for Maintenance Planning rule accuracy [WFT-047], the draft mentioned but did not verify risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status. 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 WFT-047 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Maintenance Planning task fidelity [WFT-047] — the draft did not link WFT-047-M03 to the full task boundary; 2) Maintenance Planning rule accuracy [WFT-047] — the draft mentioned but did not verify risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
Corrected response WFT-047 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: rank M03 first, create M02’s 500-hour service, defer M06 awaiting part, and keep low-risk M05 below blocker M01. Its corrected row read “WFT-047-M03 | rule: risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status | decision: rank M03 first, create M02’s 500-hour service, defer M06 awaiting part, and keep low-risk M05 below blocker M01 | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Maintenance Planning task fidelity [WFT-047]. The final audit passed Maintenance Planning task fidelity [WFT-047], Maintenance Planning exception handling [WFT-047], Maintenance Planning source traceability [WFT-047], and Maintenance Planning handoff usability [WFT-047]. It still lacked Maintenance Planning rule accuracy [WFT-047]; those failures remain visible. The ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maintenance Planning task fidelity [WFT-047] | Fail | Pass | WFT-047 static check 1 inspected “Maintenance Planning task fidelity [WFT-047]” against WFT-047-M03, the rule “risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status,” and the saved ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
| Maintenance Planning rule accuracy [WFT-047] | Fail | Fail | WFT-047 static check 2 inspected “Maintenance Planning rule accuracy [WFT-047]” against WFT-047-M03, the rule “risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status,” and the saved ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
| Maintenance Planning exception handling [WFT-047] | Pass | Pass | WFT-047 static check 3 inspected “Maintenance Planning exception handling [WFT-047]” against WFT-047-M03, the rule “risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status,” and the saved ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
| Maintenance Planning source traceability [WFT-047] | Pass | Pass | WFT-047 static check 4 inspected “Maintenance Planning source traceability [WFT-047]” against WFT-047-M03, the rule “risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status,” and the saved ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
| Maintenance Planning handoff usability [WFT-047] | Pass | Pass | WFT-047 static check 5 inspected “Maintenance Planning handoff usability [WFT-047]” against WFT-047-M03, the rule “risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status,” and the saved ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
08 · No cleanup by omission
What worked—and what failed
What worked
- WFT-047 bounded “create preventive maintenance work orders from equipment manuals” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.
- WFT-047 exposed WFT-047-M03—rank M03 first, create M02’s 500-hour service, defer M06 awaiting part, and keep low-risk M05 below blocker M01—inside the saved ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log.
- WFT-047 earned inspectable passes for Maintenance Planning task fidelity [WFT-047] and Maintenance Planning exception handling [WFT-047] under the unchanged rubric.
What failed or remained weak
- WFT-047 still lacked saved-text evidence for Maintenance Planning rule accuracy [WFT-047]; that failure remains published.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A work-order set with manual references and interval checks will verify tasks, parts, timing, and safety steps.
- WFT-047 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- WFT-047 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.
- WFT-047 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A work-order set with manual references and interval checks will verify tasks, parts, timing, and safety steps.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- WFT-047 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Maintenance Planning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- WFT-047 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.