Work · Evidence record
Planning a Multi-City Business Trip Within Company Policy: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction
The completed WFT-035 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Travel Planning, while 1 check remained unresolved.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
plan a multi-city business trip within travel policy
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-035: An executive assistant will provide meeting windows, route options, traveler preferences, and expense limits. Source facts: Shanghai→Singapore→Tokyo; meetings 2026-09-12/14; airfare cap $1,200; hotel cap $220; no red-eyes; fare A $1,080 at 06:30; fare B $1,260. Governing rule card: dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap. 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-035 for “plan a multi-city business trip within travel policy” 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-035. Task: plan a multi-city business trip within travel policy. Context: An executive assistant will provide meeting windows, route options, traveler preferences, and expense limits. Fictional source facts: Shanghai→Singapore→Tokyo; meetings 2026-09-12/14; airfare cap $1,200; hotel cap $220; no red-eyes; fare A $1,080 at 06:30; fare B $1,260. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap. 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 multi-city itinerary, policy-cost ledger, and violation list. 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 proposed itinerary and a policy, timing, and cost checklist will verify feasibility and compliance.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response WFT-035 produced a multi-city itinerary, policy-cost ledger, and violation list for “plan a multi-city business trip within travel policy.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-035-FARE-B | choose fare A, hotels at $205/$218, preserve two-hour transfer buffers, and flag fare B for approval | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named fare B’s over-cap cost and the no-red-eye rule and left the disposition blank. The rule cell mentioned without verifying dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Travel Planning task fidelity [WFT-035], Travel Planning source traceability [WFT-035], and Travel Planning handoff usability [WFT-035]. It found for Travel Planning rule accuracy [WFT-035], the draft mentioned but did not verify dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap; for Travel Planning exception handling [WFT-035], the draft left fare B’s over-cap cost and the no-red-eye rule without an explicit disposition. 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-035 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Travel Planning rule accuracy [WFT-035] — the draft mentioned but did not verify dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap; 2) Travel Planning exception handling [WFT-035] — the draft left fare B’s over-cap cost and the no-red-eye rule without an explicit disposition.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
Corrected response WFT-035 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: choose fare A, hotels at $205/$218, preserve two-hour transfer buffers, and flag fare B for approval. Its corrected row read “WFT-035-FARE-B | rule: dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap | decision: choose fare A, hotels at $205/$218, preserve two-hour transfer buffers, and flag fare B for approval | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Travel Planning rule accuracy [WFT-035]. The final audit passed Travel Planning task fidelity [WFT-035], Travel Planning rule accuracy [WFT-035], Travel Planning source traceability [WFT-035], and Travel Planning handoff usability [WFT-035]. It still lacked Travel Planning exception handling [WFT-035]; those failures remain visible. The multi-city itinerary, policy-cost ledger, and violation list 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Travel Planning task fidelity [WFT-035] | Pass | Pass | WFT-035 static check 1 inspected “Travel Planning task fidelity [WFT-035]” against WFT-035-FARE-B, the rule “dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap,” and the saved multi-city itinerary, policy-cost ledger, and violation list. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
| Travel Planning rule accuracy [WFT-035] | Fail | Pass | WFT-035 static check 2 inspected “Travel Planning rule accuracy [WFT-035]” against WFT-035-FARE-B, the rule “dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap,” and the saved multi-city itinerary, policy-cost ledger, and violation list. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
| Travel Planning exception handling [WFT-035] | Fail | Fail | WFT-035 static check 3 inspected “Travel Planning exception handling [WFT-035]” against WFT-035-FARE-B, the rule “dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap,” and the saved multi-city itinerary, policy-cost ledger, and violation list. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
| Travel Planning source traceability [WFT-035] | Pass | Pass | WFT-035 static check 4 inspected “Travel Planning source traceability [WFT-035]” against WFT-035-FARE-B, the rule “dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap,” and the saved multi-city itinerary, policy-cost ledger, and violation list. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome. |
| Travel Planning handoff usability [WFT-035] | Pass | Pass | WFT-035 static check 5 inspected “Travel Planning handoff usability [WFT-035]” against WFT-035-FARE-B, the rule “dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap,” and the saved multi-city itinerary, policy-cost ledger, and violation list. 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-035 bounded “plan a multi-city business trip within travel policy” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.
- WFT-035 exposed WFT-035-FARE-B—choose fare A, hotels at $205/$218, preserve two-hour transfer buffers, and flag fare B for approval—inside the saved multi-city itinerary, policy-cost ledger, and violation list.
- WFT-035 earned inspectable passes for Travel Planning task fidelity [WFT-035] and Travel Planning rule accuracy [WFT-035] under the unchanged rubric.
What failed or remained weak
- WFT-035 still lacked saved-text evidence for Travel Planning exception handling [WFT-035]; that failure remains published.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A proposed itinerary and a policy, timing, and cost checklist will verify feasibility and compliance.
- WFT-035 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- WFT-035 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.
- WFT-035 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A proposed itinerary and a policy, timing, and cost checklist will verify feasibility and compliance.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- WFT-035 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Travel Planning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- WFT-035 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.