Work · Evidence record
Draft a Crisis-Response Handoff Without Dropping Open Decisions — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found
The completed WFT-052 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Crisis Handoffs, while 1 check remained unresolved.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
draft a crisis-response handoff from fragmented incident updates
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-052: An operations team will provide time-stamped updates, conflicting owner notes, open decisions, and the next shift's contact roster. Source facts: fictional notes WFT-052-N01 through WFT-052-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-052-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-052 for “draft a crisis-response handoff from fragmented incident updates” 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-052. Task: draft a crisis-response handoff from fragmented incident updates. Context: An operations team will provide time-stamped updates, conflicting owner notes, open decisions, and the next shift's contact roster. Fictional source facts: fictional notes WFT-052-N01 through WFT-052-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-052-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: A source-linked handoff and decision register will verify chronology, owners, unresolved questions, and escalation paths.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response WFT-052 produced a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log for the task “draft a crisis-response handoff from fragmented incident updates.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-052-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-052-ROW1 reads: “WFT-052-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-052-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 Crisis Handoffs exception handling [WFT-052], Crisis Handoffs source traceability [WFT-052], and Crisis Handoffs handoff usability [WFT-052]. The audit found concrete failures: for Crisis Handoffs task fidelity [WFT-052], the saved draft did not connect WFT-052-N07 to the full boundary of “draft a crisis-response handoff from fragmented incident updates”; for Crisis Handoffs rule accuracy [WFT-052], the saved draft left the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements without an explicit verification row. 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-052 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Crisis Handoffs task fidelity [WFT-052] — the draft did not connect WFT-052-N07 to the full boundary of “draft a crisis-response handoff from fragmented incident updates”; 2) Crisis Handoffs rule accuracy [WFT-052] — the draft left the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements without an explicit verification row.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
Corrected response WFT-052 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-052-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-052-ROW1 reads: “WFT-052-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-052-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | evidence locator: WFT-052-N01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Crisis Handoffs task fidelity [WFT-052]. The frozen final text passed Crisis Handoffs task fidelity [WFT-052], Crisis Handoffs exception handling [WFT-052], Crisis Handoffs source traceability [WFT-052], and Crisis Handoffs handoff usability [WFT-052] and still failed Crisis Handoffs rule accuracy [WFT-052]. The final source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crisis Handoffs task fidelity [WFT-052] | Fail | Pass | WFT-052 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Crisis Handoffs task fidelity [WFT-052].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-052-N07, the declared Crisis Handoffs rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Crisis Handoffs rule accuracy [WFT-052] | Fail | Fail | WFT-052 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Crisis Handoffs rule accuracy [WFT-052].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-052-N07, the declared Crisis Handoffs rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Crisis Handoffs exception handling [WFT-052] | Pass | Pass | WFT-052 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Crisis Handoffs exception handling [WFT-052].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-052-N07, the declared Crisis Handoffs rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Crisis Handoffs source traceability [WFT-052] | Pass | Pass | WFT-052 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Crisis Handoffs source traceability [WFT-052].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-052-N07, the declared Crisis Handoffs rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Crisis Handoffs handoff usability [WFT-052] | Pass | Pass | WFT-052 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Crisis Handoffs handoff usability [WFT-052].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-052-N07, the declared Crisis Handoffs 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-052 kept “draft a crisis-response handoff from fragmented incident updates” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.
- WFT-052 made the central handling—record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-052-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.
- WFT-052 earned final passes for Crisis Handoffs task fidelity [WFT-052] and Crisis Handoffs exception handling [WFT-052] under the same frozen scoring rules.
What failed or remained weak
- WFT-052 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Crisis Handoffs rule accuracy [WFT-052]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A source-linked handoff and decision register will verify chronology, owners, unresolved questions, and escalation paths.
- WFT-052 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- WFT-052 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.
- WFT-052 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A source-linked handoff and decision register will verify chronology, owners, unresolved questions, and escalation paths.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- WFT-052 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Crisis Handoffs fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- WFT-052 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.