Work · Evidence record
Will AI Resolve a Week of Calendar Conflicts Without Breaking Constraints — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10
The completed WFT-042 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Calendar Coordination, while 1 check remained unresolved.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
resolve a week of calendar conflicts under scheduling constraints
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-042: An administrative team will provide meeting priorities, attendee availability, location rules, and protected focus periods. Source facts: records WFT-042-R01 through WFT-042-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 43 and 59; dependency WFT-042-R04 after WFT-042-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-042-R05. Governing rule card: the two window limits (43 and 59). 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-042 for “resolve a week of calendar conflicts under scheduling constraints” 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-042. Task: resolve a week of calendar conflicts under scheduling constraints. Context: An administrative team will provide meeting priorities, attendee availability, location rules, and protected focus periods. Fictional source facts: records WFT-042-R01 through WFT-042-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 43 and 59; dependency WFT-042-R04 after WFT-042-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-042-R05. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the two window limits (43 and 59). 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 revised schedule and automated overlap, attendance, and travel-time checks will verify feasibility.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response WFT-042 produced a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register for the task “resolve a week of calendar conflicts under scheduling constraints.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: keep WFT-042-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-042-R04 only after WFT-042-R02, and flag the second window when demand 59 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-042-ROW1 reads: “WFT-042-R01 | keep WFT-042-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-042-R04 only after WFT-042-R02, and flag the second window when demand 59 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 Calendar Coordination exception handling [WFT-042], Calendar Coordination source traceability [WFT-042], and Calendar Coordination handoff usability [WFT-042]. The audit found concrete failures: for Calendar Coordination task fidelity [WFT-042], the saved draft did not connect WFT-042-R05 to the full boundary of “resolve a week of calendar conflicts under scheduling constraints”; for Calendar Coordination rule accuracy [WFT-042], the saved draft left the two window limits (43 and 59) without an explicit verification row. 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-042 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Calendar Coordination task fidelity [WFT-042] — the draft did not connect WFT-042-R05 to the full boundary of “resolve a week of calendar conflicts under scheduling constraints”; 2) Calendar Coordination rule accuracy [WFT-042] — the draft left the two window limits (43 and 59) without an explicit verification row.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
Corrected response WFT-042 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: keep WFT-042-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-042-R04 only after WFT-042-R02, and flag the second window when demand 59 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-042-ROW1 reads: “WFT-042-R01 | keep WFT-042-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-042-R04 only after WFT-042-R02, and flag the second window when demand 59 exceeds the stated capacity | evidence locator: WFT-042-R01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Calendar Coordination task fidelity [WFT-042]. The frozen final text passed Calendar Coordination task fidelity [WFT-042], Calendar Coordination exception handling [WFT-042], Calendar Coordination source traceability [WFT-042], and Calendar Coordination handoff usability [WFT-042] and still failed Calendar Coordination rule accuracy [WFT-042]. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calendar Coordination task fidelity [WFT-042] | Fail | Pass | WFT-042 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Calendar Coordination task fidelity [WFT-042].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-042-R05, the declared Calendar Coordination rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Calendar Coordination rule accuracy [WFT-042] | Fail | Fail | WFT-042 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Calendar Coordination rule accuracy [WFT-042].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-042-R05, the declared Calendar Coordination rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Calendar Coordination exception handling [WFT-042] | Pass | Pass | WFT-042 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Calendar Coordination exception handling [WFT-042].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-042-R05, the declared Calendar Coordination rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Calendar Coordination source traceability [WFT-042] | Pass | Pass | WFT-042 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Calendar Coordination source traceability [WFT-042].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-042-R05, the declared Calendar Coordination rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Calendar Coordination handoff usability [WFT-042] | Pass | Pass | WFT-042 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Calendar Coordination handoff usability [WFT-042].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-042-R05, the declared Calendar Coordination 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-042 kept “resolve a week of calendar conflicts under scheduling constraints” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.
- WFT-042 made the central handling—keep WFT-042-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-042-R04 only after WFT-042-R02, and flag the second window when demand 59 exceeds the stated capacity—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.
- WFT-042 earned final passes for Calendar Coordination task fidelity [WFT-042] and Calendar Coordination exception handling [WFT-042] under the same frozen scoring rules.
What failed or remained weak
- WFT-042 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Calendar Coordination rule accuracy [WFT-042]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A revised schedule and automated overlap, attendance, and travel-time checks will verify feasibility.
- WFT-042 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- WFT-042 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.
- WFT-042 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A revised schedule and automated overlap, attendance, and travel-time checks will verify feasibility.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- WFT-042 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Calendar Coordination fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- WFT-042 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.