Work · Evidence record
How Well Can AI Personalize Renewal Outreach from Customer Records: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction
The completed WFT-011 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Renewal Outreach, while 0 checks remained unresolved.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
draft account-specific renewal outreach from customer records
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-011: An account team will provide contract dates, approved product facts, and documented customer commitments for several renewals. Source facts: accounts WFT-011-R01–R03; renewals 2026-10-01/10-15/11-02; approved facts 18 seats, migration complete, ticket 442 open; discount promises prohibited. Governing rule card: each personalized statement must map to an approved account field. 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-011 for “draft account-specific renewal outreach from customer records” 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-011. Task: draft account-specific renewal outreach from customer records. Context: An account team will provide contract dates, approved product facts, and documented customer commitments for several renewals. Fictional source facts: accounts WFT-011-R01–R03; renewals 2026-10-01/10-15/11-02; approved facts 18 seats, migration complete, ticket 442 open; discount promises prohibited. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: each personalized statement must map to an approved account field. 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 account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim 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 set of draft messages and a field-by-field source check will verify personalization and factual accuracy.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response WFT-011 produced a account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log for “draft account-specific renewal outreach from customer records.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-011-R01 | mention R01’s 18 seats and date, acknowledge ticket 442 without promising resolution, and omit any unsupported discount | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named open ticket 442 and the prohibited-discount boundary and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified each personalized statement must map to an approved account field. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Renewal Outreach task fidelity [WFT-011], Renewal Outreach rule accuracy [WFT-011], and Renewal Outreach exception handling [WFT-011]. It found for Renewal Outreach source traceability [WFT-011], the draft gave WFT-011-R01 no source locator; for Renewal Outreach handoff usability [WFT-011], the draft left the account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. 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-011 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Renewal Outreach source traceability [WFT-011] — the draft gave WFT-011-R01 no source locator; 2) Renewal Outreach handoff usability [WFT-011] — the draft left the account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
Corrected response WFT-011 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: mention R01’s 18 seats and date, acknowledge ticket 442 without promising resolution, and omit any unsupported discount. Its corrected row read “WFT-011-R01 | rule: each personalized statement must map to an approved account field | decision: mention R01’s 18 seats and date, acknowledge ticket 442 without promising resolution, and omit any unsupported discount | static status: 10/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Renewal Outreach source traceability [WFT-011] and Renewal Outreach handoff usability [WFT-011]. The final audit passed Renewal Outreach task fidelity [WFT-011], Renewal Outreach rule accuracy [WFT-011], Renewal Outreach exception handling [WFT-011], Renewal Outreach source traceability [WFT-011], and Renewal Outreach handoff usability [WFT-011]. All five dimensions had inspectable support after one correction. The account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log earned 10/10 from 5 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: 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Renewal Outreach task fidelity [WFT-011] | Pass | Pass | WFT-011 static check 1 inspected “Renewal Outreach task fidelity [WFT-011]” against WFT-011-R01, the rule “each personalized statement must map to an approved account field,” and the saved account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
| Renewal Outreach rule accuracy [WFT-011] | Pass | Pass | WFT-011 static check 2 inspected “Renewal Outreach rule accuracy [WFT-011]” against WFT-011-R01, the rule “each personalized statement must map to an approved account field,” and the saved account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
| Renewal Outreach exception handling [WFT-011] | Pass | Pass | WFT-011 static check 3 inspected “Renewal Outreach exception handling [WFT-011]” against WFT-011-R01, the rule “each personalized statement must map to an approved account field,” and the saved account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
| Renewal Outreach source traceability [WFT-011] | Fail | Pass | WFT-011 static check 4 inspected “Renewal Outreach source traceability [WFT-011]” against WFT-011-R01, the rule “each personalized statement must map to an approved account field,” and the saved account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
| Renewal Outreach handoff usability [WFT-011] | Fail | Pass | WFT-011 static check 5 inspected “Renewal Outreach handoff usability [WFT-011]” against WFT-011-R01, the rule “each personalized statement must map to an approved account field,” and the saved account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log. The first transcript failed; 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-011 bounded “draft account-specific renewal outreach from customer records” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.
- WFT-011 exposed WFT-011-R01—mention R01’s 18 seats and date, acknowledge ticket 442 without promising resolution, and omit any unsupported discount—inside the saved account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log.
- WFT-011 earned inspectable passes for Renewal Outreach task fidelity [WFT-011] and Renewal Outreach rule accuracy [WFT-011] under the unchanged rubric.
What failed or remained weak
- WFT-011 first failed Renewal Outreach source traceability [WFT-011]; one correction repaired it while preserving the defect in the audit trail.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A set of draft messages and a field-by-field source check will verify personalization and factual accuracy.
- WFT-011 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- WFT-011 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.
- WFT-011 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A set of draft messages and a field-by-field source check will verify personalization and factual accuracy.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- WFT-011 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Renewal Outreach fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- WFT-011 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.