Work · Evidence record
Building a Contract Renewal Calendar with Clause-Level Evidence — Completed Benchmark Result: 6/10
The completed WFT-032 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Renewal Tracking checks passed after one correction, but Renewal Tracking task fidelity [WFT-032] and Renewal Tracking rule accuracy [WFT-032] remained unsupported.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
build a renewal calendar from a contract repository
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-032: A commercial operations team will provide agreements with varied renewal, termination, and notice language. Source facts: records WFT-032-R01 through WFT-032-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 31 and 43; dependency WFT-032-R04 after WFT-032-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-032-R05. Governing rule card: the two window limits (31 and 43). 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-032 for “build a renewal calendar from a contract repository” 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-032. Task: build a renewal calendar from a contract repository. Context: A commercial operations team will provide agreements with varied renewal, termination, and notice language. Fictional source facts: records WFT-032-R01 through WFT-032-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 31 and 43; dependency WFT-032-R04 after WFT-032-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-032-R05. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the two window limits (31 and 43). 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 dated renewal register with clause references and manual deadline checks will verify every entry.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response WFT-032 produced a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register for the task “build a renewal calendar from a contract repository.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: keep WFT-032-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-032-R04 only after WFT-032-R02, and flag the second window when demand 43 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-032-ROW1 reads: “WFT-032-R01 | keep WFT-032-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-032-R04 only after WFT-032-R02, and flag the second window when demand 43 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 Renewal Tracking exception handling [WFT-032] and Renewal Tracking source traceability [WFT-032]. The audit found concrete failures: for Renewal Tracking task fidelity [WFT-032], the saved draft did not connect WFT-032-R05 to the full boundary of “build a renewal calendar from a contract repository”; for Renewal Tracking rule accuracy [WFT-032], the saved draft left the two window limits (31 and 43) without an explicit verification row; for Renewal Tracking handoff usability [WFT-032], 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: 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-032 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Renewal Tracking task fidelity [WFT-032] — the draft did not connect WFT-032-R05 to the full boundary of “build a renewal calendar from a contract repository”; 2) Renewal Tracking rule accuracy [WFT-032] — the draft left the two window limits (31 and 43) without an explicit verification row; 3) Renewal Tracking handoff usability [WFT-032] — 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-032 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: keep WFT-032-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-032-R04 only after WFT-032-R02, and flag the second window when demand 43 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-032-ROW1 reads: “WFT-032-R01 | keep WFT-032-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-032-R04 only after WFT-032-R02, and flag the second window when demand 43 exceeds the stated capacity | evidence locator: WFT-032-R01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Renewal Tracking handoff usability [WFT-032]. The frozen final text passed Renewal Tracking exception handling [WFT-032], Renewal Tracking source traceability [WFT-032], and Renewal Tracking handoff usability [WFT-032] and still failed Renewal Tracking task fidelity [WFT-032] and Renewal Tracking rule accuracy [WFT-032]. The final constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Renewal Tracking task fidelity [WFT-032] | Fail | Fail | WFT-032 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Renewal Tracking task fidelity [WFT-032].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-032-R05, the declared Renewal Tracking rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Renewal Tracking rule accuracy [WFT-032] | Fail | Fail | WFT-032 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Renewal Tracking rule accuracy [WFT-032].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-032-R05, the declared Renewal Tracking rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Renewal Tracking exception handling [WFT-032] | Pass | Pass | WFT-032 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Renewal Tracking exception handling [WFT-032].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-032-R05, the declared Renewal Tracking rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Renewal Tracking source traceability [WFT-032] | Pass | Pass | WFT-032 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Renewal Tracking source traceability [WFT-032].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-032-R05, the declared Renewal Tracking rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Renewal Tracking handoff usability [WFT-032] | Fail | Pass | WFT-032 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Renewal Tracking handoff usability [WFT-032].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-032-R05, the declared Renewal Tracking 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-032 kept “build a renewal calendar from a contract repository” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.
- WFT-032 made the central handling—keep WFT-032-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-032-R04 only after WFT-032-R02, and flag the second window when demand 43 exceeds the stated capacity—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.
- WFT-032 earned final passes for Renewal Tracking exception handling [WFT-032] and Renewal Tracking source traceability [WFT-032] under the same frozen scoring rules.
What failed or remained weak
- WFT-032 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Renewal Tracking task fidelity [WFT-032]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
- WFT-032 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Renewal Tracking rule accuracy [WFT-032]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A dated renewal register with clause references and manual deadline checks will verify every entry.
- WFT-032 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- WFT-032 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.
- WFT-032 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A dated renewal register with clause references and manual deadline checks will verify every entry.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- WFT-032 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Renewal Tracking fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- WFT-032 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.