Work · Evidence record
An AI Pick-Path Plan for a Congested Warehouse — Completed Benchmark Result: 6/10
The completed WFT-056 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Warehouse Routing checks passed after one correction, but Warehouse Routing source traceability [WFT-056] and Warehouse Routing handoff usability [WFT-056] remained unsupported.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
plan warehouse pick paths around congestion and handling constraints
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-056: A warehouse team will provide a fixed floor map, order batch, one-way aisles, heavy-item rules, and temporary blocked zones. Source facts: orders or assets WFT-056-O01 through WFT-056-O07; capacities 25 kg and 72 minutes; skill tags E1/E2; aisle or access closure Z3 from 10:00–12:00; a safety hold on WFT-056-O04; and cutoff 16:30 for O06. Governing rule card: the 25-kg and 72-minute capacity ceilings. Safety holds and access closures are mandatory; never exceed capacity; honor skill, cutoff, and handling constraints; cover each eligible item at most once. 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-056 for “plan warehouse pick paths around congestion and handling 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-056. Task: plan warehouse pick paths around congestion and handling constraints. Context: A warehouse team will provide a fixed floor map, order batch, one-way aisles, heavy-item rules, and temporary blocked zones. Fictional source facts: orders or assets WFT-056-O01 through WFT-056-O07; capacities 25 kg and 72 minutes; skill tags E1/E2; aisle or access closure Z3 from 10:00–12:00; a safety hold on WFT-056-O04; and cutoff 16:30 for O06. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the 25-kg and 72-minute capacity ceilings. Safety holds and access closures are mandatory; never exceed capacity; honor skill, cutoff, and handling constraints; cover each eligible item at most once. Produce an operations table, ordered work sequence, and constraint exceptions. 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 route replay will measure distance, rule violations, blocked-segment use, and heavy-item ordering against a reference solver.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response WFT-056 produced an operations table, ordered work sequence, and constraint exceptions for the task “plan warehouse pick paths around congestion and handling constraints.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: hold WFT-056-O04, route O06 before its 16:30 cutoff, and avoid zone Z3 during the closure while preserving E1/E2 skill requirements. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-056-ROW1 reads: “WFT-056-O01 | hold WFT-056-O04, route O06 before its 16:30 cutoff, and avoid zone Z3 during the closure while preserving E1/E2 skill requirements | 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 Warehouse Routing task fidelity [WFT-056] and Warehouse Routing rule accuracy [WFT-056]. The audit found concrete failures: for Warehouse Routing exception handling [WFT-056], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the safety hold on WFT-056-O04 and zone-Z3 closure; for Warehouse Routing source traceability [WFT-056], the saved draft gave the central WFT-056-O04 decision no source-to-output locator; for Warehouse Routing handoff usability [WFT-056], the saved draft left the operations table, ordered work sequence, and constraint exceptions 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: 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-056 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Warehouse Routing exception handling [WFT-056] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the safety hold on WFT-056-O04 and zone-Z3 closure; 2) Warehouse Routing source traceability [WFT-056] — the draft gave the central WFT-056-O04 decision no source-to-output locator; 3) Warehouse Routing handoff usability [WFT-056] — the draft left the operations table, ordered work sequence, and constraint exceptions without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
Corrected response WFT-056 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: hold WFT-056-O04, route O06 before its 16:30 cutoff, and avoid zone Z3 during the closure while preserving E1/E2 skill requirements. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-056-ROW1 reads: “WFT-056-O01 | hold WFT-056-O04, route O06 before its 16:30 cutoff, and avoid zone Z3 during the closure while preserving E1/E2 skill requirements | evidence locator: WFT-056-O01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Warehouse Routing exception handling [WFT-056]. The frozen final text passed Warehouse Routing task fidelity [WFT-056], Warehouse Routing rule accuracy [WFT-056], and Warehouse Routing exception handling [WFT-056] and still failed Warehouse Routing source traceability [WFT-056] and Warehouse Routing handoff usability [WFT-056]. The final operations table, ordered work sequence, and constraint exceptions 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warehouse Routing task fidelity [WFT-056] | Pass | Pass | WFT-056 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Warehouse Routing task fidelity [WFT-056].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-056-O04, the declared Warehouse Routing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Warehouse Routing rule accuracy [WFT-056] | Pass | Pass | WFT-056 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Warehouse Routing rule accuracy [WFT-056].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-056-O04, the declared Warehouse Routing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Warehouse Routing exception handling [WFT-056] | Fail | Pass | WFT-056 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Warehouse Routing exception handling [WFT-056].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-056-O04, the declared Warehouse Routing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Warehouse Routing source traceability [WFT-056] | Fail | Fail | WFT-056 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Warehouse Routing source traceability [WFT-056].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-056-O04, the declared Warehouse Routing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Warehouse Routing handoff usability [WFT-056] | Fail | Fail | WFT-056 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Warehouse Routing handoff usability [WFT-056].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-056-O04, the declared Warehouse Routing 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-056 kept “plan warehouse pick paths around congestion and handling constraints” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.
- WFT-056 made the central handling—hold WFT-056-O04, route O06 before its 16:30 cutoff, and avoid zone Z3 during the closure while preserving E1/E2 skill requirements—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.
- WFT-056 earned final passes for Warehouse Routing task fidelity [WFT-056] and Warehouse Routing rule accuracy [WFT-056] under the same frozen scoring rules.
What failed or remained weak
- WFT-056 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Warehouse Routing source traceability [WFT-056]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
- WFT-056 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Warehouse Routing handoff usability [WFT-056]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A route replay will measure distance, rule violations, blocked-segment use, and heavy-item ordering against a reference solver.
- WFT-056 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- WFT-056 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.
- WFT-056 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A route replay will measure distance, rule violations, blocked-segment use, and heavy-item ordering against a reference solver.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- WFT-056 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Warehouse Routing fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- WFT-056 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.