Work · Evidence record
Planning an Office Relocation Around Business Continuity with AI — Three of Five Checks Passed
The completed WFT-050 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Move Planning checks passed after one correction, but Move Planning rule accuracy [WFT-050] and Move Planning exception handling [WFT-050] remained unsupported.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
plan an office relocation around business continuity constraints
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-050: A workplace team will provide floor access dates, team dependencies, equipment inventories, vendor windows, and downtime limits. Source facts: records WFT-050-R01 through WFT-050-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 41 and 53; dependency WFT-050-R04 after WFT-050-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-050-R05. Governing rule card: the two window limits (41 and 53). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. 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-050 for “plan an office relocation around business continuity constraints” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 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-050. Task: plan an office relocation around business continuity constraints. Context: A workplace team will provide floor access dates, team dependencies, equipment inventories, vendor windows, and downtime limits. Fictional source facts: records WFT-050-R01 through WFT-050-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 41 and 53; dependency WFT-050-R04 after WFT-050-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-050-R05. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the two window limits (41 and 53). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. Produce a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register. 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 phased move plan and dependency-and-downtime checks will verify sequence, ownership, and continuity coverage.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response WFT-050 produced a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register for the task “plan an office relocation around business continuity constraints.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: keep WFT-050-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-050-R04 only after WFT-050-R02, and flag the second window when demand 53 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-050-ROW1 reads: “WFT-050-R01 | keep WFT-050-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-050-R04 only after WFT-050-R02, and flag the second window when demand 53 exceeds the stated capacity | 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 Move Planning source traceability [WFT-050] and Move Planning handoff usability [WFT-050]. The audit found concrete failures: for Move Planning task fidelity [WFT-050], the saved draft did not connect WFT-050-R05 to the full boundary of “plan an office relocation around business continuity constraints”; for Move Planning rule accuracy [WFT-050], the saved draft left the two window limits (41 and 53) without an explicit verification row; for Move Planning exception handling [WFT-050], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the WFT-050-R05 availability exception and the WFT-050-R02→R04 dependency. 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: 4/10
05 · One pass only
Exact correction prompt
Only this single correction was allowed; there was no second repair pass.
Correct only these detected WFT-050 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Move Planning task fidelity [WFT-050] — the draft did not connect WFT-050-R05 to the full boundary of “plan an office relocation around business continuity constraints”; 2) Move Planning rule accuracy [WFT-050] — the draft left the two window limits (41 and 53) without an explicit verification row; 3) Move Planning exception handling [WFT-050] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the WFT-050-R05 availability exception and the WFT-050-R02→R04 dependency.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
Corrected response WFT-050 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: keep WFT-050-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-050-R04 only after WFT-050-R02, and flag the second window when demand 53 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-050-ROW1 reads: “WFT-050-R01 | keep WFT-050-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-050-R04 only after WFT-050-R02, and flag the second window when demand 53 exceeds the stated capacity | evidence locator: WFT-050-R01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Move Planning task fidelity [WFT-050]. The frozen final text passed Move Planning task fidelity [WFT-050], Move Planning source traceability [WFT-050], and Move Planning handoff usability [WFT-050] and still failed Move Planning rule accuracy [WFT-050] and Move Planning exception handling [WFT-050]. The final constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register therefore earned 6/10 from 3 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: 6/10
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Move Planning task fidelity [WFT-050] | Fail | Pass | WFT-050 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Move Planning task fidelity [WFT-050].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-050-R05, the declared Move Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Move Planning rule accuracy [WFT-050] | Fail | Fail | WFT-050 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Move Planning rule accuracy [WFT-050].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-050-R05, the declared Move Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Move Planning exception handling [WFT-050] | Fail | Fail | WFT-050 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Move Planning exception handling [WFT-050].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-050-R05, the declared Move Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Move Planning source traceability [WFT-050] | Pass | Pass | WFT-050 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Move Planning source traceability [WFT-050].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-050-R05, the declared Move Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Move Planning handoff usability [WFT-050] | Pass | Pass | WFT-050 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Move Planning handoff usability [WFT-050].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-050-R05, the declared Move 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-050 kept “plan an office relocation around business continuity constraints” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.
- WFT-050 made the central handling—keep WFT-050-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-050-R04 only after WFT-050-R02, and flag the second window when demand 53 exceeds the stated capacity—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.
- WFT-050 earned final passes for Move Planning task fidelity [WFT-050] and Move Planning source traceability [WFT-050] under the same frozen scoring rules.
What failed or remained weak
- WFT-050 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Move Planning rule accuracy [WFT-050]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
- WFT-050 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Move Planning exception handling [WFT-050]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A phased move plan and dependency-and-downtime checks will verify sequence, ownership, and continuity coverage.
- WFT-050 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- WFT-050 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.
- WFT-050 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A phased move plan and dependency-and-downtime checks will verify sequence, ownership, and continuity coverage.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- WFT-050 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Move Planning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- WFT-050 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.