Work · Evidence record
Updating a Standard Operating Procedure After an Approved Change: The One-Pass Revision Reached 10/10
The completed WFT-021 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Procedure Updates, while 0 checks remained unresolved.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
update a standard operating procedure after a process change
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-021: An operations owner will provide the current procedure, an approved change notice, and the house document structure. Source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-021-D01 through WFT-021-D05; clauses 2.1, 3.4, 6.2, and 8.7; effective dates 2026-09-01 and 2026-10-15; one defined-term conflict in WFT-021-D04; and a mandatory exception in clause 6.2. Governing rule card: the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. 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-021 for “update a standard operating procedure after a process change” 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-021. Task: update a standard operating procedure after a process change. Context: An operations owner will provide the current procedure, an approved change notice, and the house document structure. Fictional source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-021-D01 through WFT-021-D05; clauses 2.1, 3.4, 6.2, and 8.7; effective dates 2026-09-01 and 2026-10-15; one defined-term conflict in WFT-021-D04; and a mandatory exception in clause 6.2. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. Produce a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source 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 procedure and a change-to-section trace will verify incorporation without unrelated edits.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response WFT-021 produced a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register for the task “update a standard operating procedure after a process change.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-021-D04 for review. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-021-ROW1 reads: “WFT-021-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-021-D04 for review | 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 Procedure Updates task fidelity [WFT-021], Procedure Updates rule accuracy [WFT-021], and Procedure Updates exception handling [WFT-021]. The audit found concrete failures: for Procedure Updates source traceability [WFT-021], the saved draft gave the central WFT-021-D04 decision no source-to-output locator; for Procedure Updates handoff usability [WFT-021], the saved draft left the clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source 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-021 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Procedure Updates source traceability [WFT-021] — the draft gave the central WFT-021-D04 decision no source-to-output locator; 2) Procedure Updates handoff usability [WFT-021] — the draft left the clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
Corrected response WFT-021 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-021-D04 for review. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-021-ROW1 reads: “WFT-021-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-021-D04 for review | evidence locator: WFT-021-D01 | static status: 10/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Procedure Updates source traceability [WFT-021] and Procedure Updates handoff usability [WFT-021]. The frozen final text passed Procedure Updates task fidelity [WFT-021], Procedure Updates rule accuracy [WFT-021], Procedure Updates exception handling [WFT-021], Procedure Updates source traceability [WFT-021], and Procedure Updates handoff usability [WFT-021]. All five declared dimensions had inspectable support after the one correction. The final clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register therefore earned 10/10 from 5 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: 10/10
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedure Updates task fidelity [WFT-021] | Pass | Pass | WFT-021 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Procedure Updates task fidelity [WFT-021].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-021-D04, the declared Procedure Updates rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Procedure Updates rule accuracy [WFT-021] | Pass | Pass | WFT-021 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Procedure Updates rule accuracy [WFT-021].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-021-D04, the declared Procedure Updates rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Procedure Updates exception handling [WFT-021] | Pass | Pass | WFT-021 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Procedure Updates exception handling [WFT-021].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-021-D04, the declared Procedure Updates rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Procedure Updates source traceability [WFT-021] | Fail | Pass | WFT-021 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Procedure Updates source traceability [WFT-021].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-021-D04, the declared Procedure Updates rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Procedure Updates handoff usability [WFT-021] | Fail | Pass | WFT-021 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Procedure Updates handoff usability [WFT-021].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-021-D04, the declared Procedure Updates 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-021 kept “update a standard operating procedure after a process change” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.
- WFT-021 made the central handling—trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-021-D04 for review—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.
- WFT-021 earned final passes for Procedure Updates task fidelity [WFT-021] and Procedure Updates rule accuracy [WFT-021] under the same frozen scoring rules.
What failed or remained weak
- WFT-021’s first draft failed Procedure Updates source traceability [WFT-021]; one correction repaired it, but the initial defect remains part of the published audit trail.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A revised procedure and a change-to-section trace will verify incorporation without unrelated edits.
- WFT-021 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- WFT-021 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.
- WFT-021 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A revised procedure and a change-to-section trace will verify incorporation without unrelated edits.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- WFT-021 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Procedure Updates fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- WFT-021 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.