Work · Evidence record
Should AI Schedule Field Technicians Around Skills, Travel, and Service Windows: A Failed Synthetic Benchmark at 4/10
The completed WFT-019 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Field Dispatch checks passed after the permitted correction.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
schedule field technicians around skills, travel, and service windows
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-019: A service dispatcher will provide jobs, technician qualifications, starting locations, durations, and customer time windows. Source facts: records WFT-019-R01 through WFT-019-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 27 and 41; dependency WFT-019-R04 after WFT-019-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-019-R05. Governing rule card: the two window limits (27 and 41). 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-019 for “schedule field technicians around skills, travel, and service windows” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 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-019. Task: schedule field technicians around skills, travel, and service windows. Context: A service dispatcher will provide jobs, technician qualifications, starting locations, durations, and customer time windows. Fictional source facts: records WFT-019-R01 through WFT-019-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 27 and 41; dependency WFT-019-R04 after WFT-019-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-019-R05. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the two window limits (27 and 41). 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 daily dispatch plan and route-and-skill validations will verify every assignment.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response WFT-019 produced a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register for the task “schedule field technicians around skills, travel, and service windows.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: keep WFT-019-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-019-R04 only after WFT-019-R02, and flag the second window when demand 41 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-019-ROW1 reads: “WFT-019-R01 | keep WFT-019-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-019-R04 only after WFT-019-R02, and flag the second window when demand 41 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 Field Dispatch rule accuracy [WFT-019]. The audit found concrete failures: for Field Dispatch task fidelity [WFT-019], the saved draft did not connect WFT-019-R05 to the full boundary of “schedule field technicians around skills, travel, and service windows”; for Field Dispatch exception handling [WFT-019], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the WFT-019-R05 availability exception and the WFT-019-R02→R04 dependency; for Field Dispatch source traceability [WFT-019], the saved draft gave the central WFT-019-R05 decision no source-to-output locator; for Field Dispatch handoff usability [WFT-019], 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: 2/10
05 · One pass only
Exact correction prompt
Only this single correction was allowed; there was no second repair pass.
Correct only these detected WFT-019 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Field Dispatch task fidelity [WFT-019] — the draft did not connect WFT-019-R05 to the full boundary of “schedule field technicians around skills, travel, and service windows”; 2) Field Dispatch exception handling [WFT-019] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the WFT-019-R05 availability exception and the WFT-019-R02→R04 dependency; 3) Field Dispatch source traceability [WFT-019] — the draft gave the central WFT-019-R05 decision no source-to-output locator; 4) Field Dispatch handoff usability [WFT-019] — 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-019 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: keep WFT-019-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-019-R04 only after WFT-019-R02, and flag the second window when demand 41 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-019-ROW1 reads: “WFT-019-R01 | keep WFT-019-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-019-R04 only after WFT-019-R02, and flag the second window when demand 41 exceeds the stated capacity | evidence locator: WFT-019-R01 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Field Dispatch exception handling [WFT-019]. The frozen final text passed Field Dispatch rule accuracy [WFT-019] and Field Dispatch exception handling [WFT-019] and still failed Field Dispatch task fidelity [WFT-019], Field Dispatch source traceability [WFT-019], and Field Dispatch handoff usability [WFT-019]. The final constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register therefore earned 4/10 from 2 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: 4/10
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Field Dispatch task fidelity [WFT-019] | Fail | Fail | WFT-019 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Field Dispatch task fidelity [WFT-019].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-019-R05, the declared Field Dispatch rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Field Dispatch rule accuracy [WFT-019] | Pass | Pass | WFT-019 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Field Dispatch rule accuracy [WFT-019].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-019-R05, the declared Field Dispatch rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Field Dispatch exception handling [WFT-019] | Fail | Pass | WFT-019 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Field Dispatch exception handling [WFT-019].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-019-R05, the declared Field Dispatch rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Field Dispatch source traceability [WFT-019] | Fail | Fail | WFT-019 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Field Dispatch source traceability [WFT-019].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-019-R05, the declared Field Dispatch rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Field Dispatch handoff usability [WFT-019] | Fail | Fail | WFT-019 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Field Dispatch handoff usability [WFT-019].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-019-R05, the declared Field Dispatch 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-019 kept “schedule field technicians around skills, travel, and service windows” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.
- WFT-019 made the central handling—keep WFT-019-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-019-R04 only after WFT-019-R02, and flag the second window when demand 41 exceeds the stated capacity—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.
What failed or remained weak
- WFT-019 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Field Dispatch task fidelity [WFT-019]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
- WFT-019 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Field Dispatch source traceability [WFT-019]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
- WFT-019 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Field Dispatch handoff usability [WFT-019]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A daily dispatch plan and route-and-skill validations will verify every assignment.
- WFT-019 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- WFT-019 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.
- WFT-019 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A daily dispatch plan and route-and-skill validations will verify every assignment.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- WFT-019 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Field Dispatch fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- WFT-019 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.