Work · Evidence record
A Grant Compliance Calendar Built from Award Terms — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found
The completed WFT-064 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Grant Compliance, while 1 check remained unresolved.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
prepare a grant compliance calendar from award terms
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-064: A nonprofit team will provide a fictional award notice, reporting schedule, cost conditions, approval gates, and subrecipient duties. Source facts: records WFT-064-R01 through WFT-064-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 23 and 66; dependency WFT-064-R04 after WFT-064-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-064-R05. Governing rule card: the two window limits (23 and 66). 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-064 for “prepare a grant compliance calendar from award terms” 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-064. Task: prepare a grant compliance calendar from award terms. Context: A nonprofit team will provide a fictional award notice, reporting schedule, cost conditions, approval gates, and subrecipient duties. Fictional source facts: records WFT-064-R01 through WFT-064-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 23 and 66; dependency WFT-064-R04 after WFT-064-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-064-R05. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the two window limits (23 and 66). 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 clause-linked calendar will be checked for every deadline, lead time, dependency, owner, and recurring obligation.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response WFT-064 produced a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register for the task “prepare a grant compliance calendar from award terms.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: keep WFT-064-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-064-R04 only after WFT-064-R02, and flag the second window when demand 66 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-064-ROW1 reads: “WFT-064-R01 | keep WFT-064-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-064-R04 only after WFT-064-R02, and flag the second window when demand 66 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 Grant Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-064], Grant Compliance exception handling [WFT-064], and Grant Compliance source traceability [WFT-064]. The audit found concrete failures: for Grant Compliance task fidelity [WFT-064], the saved draft did not connect WFT-064-R05 to the full boundary of “prepare a grant compliance calendar from award terms”; for Grant Compliance handoff usability [WFT-064], the saved draft left the constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register 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: 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-064 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Grant Compliance task fidelity [WFT-064] — the draft did not connect WFT-064-R05 to the full boundary of “prepare a grant compliance calendar from award terms”; 2) Grant Compliance handoff usability [WFT-064] — the draft left the constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
Corrected response WFT-064 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: keep WFT-064-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-064-R04 only after WFT-064-R02, and flag the second window when demand 66 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-064-ROW1 reads: “WFT-064-R01 | keep WFT-064-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-064-R04 only after WFT-064-R02, and flag the second window when demand 66 exceeds the stated capacity | evidence locator: WFT-064-R01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Grant Compliance handoff usability [WFT-064]. The frozen final text passed Grant Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-064], Grant Compliance exception handling [WFT-064], Grant Compliance source traceability [WFT-064], and Grant Compliance handoff usability [WFT-064] and still failed Grant Compliance task fidelity [WFT-064]. The final constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register therefore earned 8/10 from 4 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: 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grant Compliance task fidelity [WFT-064] | Fail | Fail | WFT-064 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Grant Compliance task fidelity [WFT-064].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-064-R05, the declared Grant Compliance rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Grant Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-064] | Pass | Pass | WFT-064 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Grant Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-064].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-064-R05, the declared Grant Compliance rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Grant Compliance exception handling [WFT-064] | Pass | Pass | WFT-064 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Grant Compliance exception handling [WFT-064].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-064-R05, the declared Grant Compliance rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Grant Compliance source traceability [WFT-064] | Pass | Pass | WFT-064 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Grant Compliance source traceability [WFT-064].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-064-R05, the declared Grant Compliance rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Grant Compliance handoff usability [WFT-064] | Fail | Pass | WFT-064 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Grant Compliance handoff usability [WFT-064].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-064-R05, the declared Grant Compliance 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-064 kept “prepare a grant compliance calendar from award terms” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.
- WFT-064 made the central handling—keep WFT-064-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-064-R04 only after WFT-064-R02, and flag the second window when demand 66 exceeds the stated capacity—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.
- WFT-064 earned final passes for Grant Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-064] and Grant Compliance exception handling [WFT-064] under the same frozen scoring rules.
What failed or remained weak
- WFT-064 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Grant Compliance task fidelity [WFT-064]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A clause-linked calendar will be checked for every deadline, lead time, dependency, owner, and recurring obligation.
- WFT-064 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- WFT-064 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.
- WFT-064 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A clause-linked calendar will be checked for every deadline, lead time, dependency, owner, and recurring obligation.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- WFT-064 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Grant Compliance fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- WFT-064 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.