Work · Evidence record
AI Training Plans That Map Skill Gaps to Approved Courses: The Completed Test Finished at 4/10
The completed WFT-025 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Training Planning checks passed after the permitted correction.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
map employee skill gaps to an approved training catalog
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-025: A learning team will provide role requirements, anonymized competency assessments, and course prerequisites. Source facts: six fictional records WFT-025-C01 through WFT-025-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 40, 48, 60, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-025-C04. Governing rule card: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. 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-025 for “map employee skill gaps to an approved training catalog” 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-025. Task: map employee skill gaps to an approved training catalog. Context: A learning team will provide role requirements, anonymized competency assessments, and course prerequisites. Fictional source facts: six fictional records WFT-025-C01 through WFT-025-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 40, 48, 60, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-025-C04. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. Produce a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention 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: Individual learning paths and a prerequisite-and-gap matrix will verify every course recommendation.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response WFT-025 produced a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log for the task “map employee skill gaps to an approved training catalog.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: rank WFT-025-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-025-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-025-ROW1 reads: “WFT-025-C01 | rank WFT-025-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-025-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | 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 Training Planning source traceability [WFT-025]. The audit found concrete failures: for Training Planning task fidelity [WFT-025], the saved draft did not connect WFT-025-C04 to the full boundary of “map employee skill gaps to an approved training catalog”; for Training Planning rule accuracy [WFT-025], the saved draft left all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker without an explicit verification row; for Training Planning exception handling [WFT-025], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the shared-name nonmatch C02/C05 and incomplete record WFT-025-C04; for Training Planning handoff usability [WFT-025], the saved draft left the record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention 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-025 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Training Planning task fidelity [WFT-025] — the draft did not connect WFT-025-C04 to the full boundary of “map employee skill gaps to an approved training catalog”; 2) Training Planning rule accuracy [WFT-025] — the draft left all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker without an explicit verification row; 3) Training Planning exception handling [WFT-025] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the shared-name nonmatch C02/C05 and incomplete record WFT-025-C04; 4) Training Planning handoff usability [WFT-025] — the draft left the record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
Corrected response WFT-025 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: rank WFT-025-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-025-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-025-ROW1 reads: “WFT-025-C01 | rank WFT-025-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-025-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | evidence locator: WFT-025-C01 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Training Planning handoff usability [WFT-025]. The frozen final text passed Training Planning source traceability [WFT-025] and Training Planning handoff usability [WFT-025] and still failed Training Planning task fidelity [WFT-025], Training Planning rule accuracy [WFT-025], and Training Planning exception handling [WFT-025]. The final record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Training Planning task fidelity [WFT-025] | Fail | Fail | WFT-025 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Training Planning task fidelity [WFT-025].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-025-C04, the declared Training Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Training Planning rule accuracy [WFT-025] | Fail | Fail | WFT-025 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Training Planning rule accuracy [WFT-025].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-025-C04, the declared Training Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Training Planning exception handling [WFT-025] | Fail | Fail | WFT-025 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Training Planning exception handling [WFT-025].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-025-C04, the declared Training Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Training Planning source traceability [WFT-025] | Pass | Pass | WFT-025 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Training Planning source traceability [WFT-025].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-025-C04, the declared Training Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Training Planning handoff usability [WFT-025] | Fail | Pass | WFT-025 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Training Planning handoff usability [WFT-025].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-025-C04, the declared Training 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-025 kept “map employee skill gaps to an approved training catalog” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.
- WFT-025 made the central handling—rank WFT-025-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-025-C04 until its identifier can be resolved—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.
What failed or remained weak
- WFT-025 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Training Planning task fidelity [WFT-025]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
- WFT-025 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Training Planning rule accuracy [WFT-025]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
- WFT-025 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Training Planning exception handling [WFT-025]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
Individual learning paths and a prerequisite-and-gap matrix will verify every course recommendation.
- WFT-025 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- WFT-025 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.
- WFT-025 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Individual learning paths and a prerequisite-and-gap matrix will verify every course recommendation.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- WFT-025 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Training Planning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- WFT-025 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.