Work · Evidence record
Updating a Records Retention Schedule from Policy Amendments — Completed Benchmark Result: 10/10
The completed WFT-046 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Records Retention, while 0 checks remained unresolved.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
update a records retention schedule from policy changes
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-046: An information governance team will provide a record inventory, the current schedule, and approved policy amendments. Source facts: records WFT-046-R01 through WFT-046-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 42 and 56; dependency WFT-046-R04 after WFT-046-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-046-R05. Governing rule card: the two window limits (42 and 56). 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-046 for “update a records retention schedule from policy changes” 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-046. Task: update a records retention schedule from policy changes. Context: An information governance team will provide a record inventory, the current schedule, and approved policy amendments. Fictional source facts: records WFT-046-R01 through WFT-046-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 42 and 56; dependency WFT-046-R04 after WFT-046-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-046-R05. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the two window limits (42 and 56). 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 an amendment-to-record trace will verify every changed period and disposition rule.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response WFT-046 produced a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register for the task “update a records retention schedule from policy changes.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: keep WFT-046-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-046-R04 only after WFT-046-R02, and flag the second window when demand 56 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-046-ROW1 reads: “WFT-046-R01 | keep WFT-046-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-046-R04 only after WFT-046-R02, and flag the second window when demand 56 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 Records Retention task fidelity [WFT-046], Records Retention rule accuracy [WFT-046], and Records Retention exception handling [WFT-046]. The audit found concrete failures: for Records Retention source traceability [WFT-046], the saved draft gave the central WFT-046-R05 decision no source-to-output locator; for Records Retention handoff usability [WFT-046], 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-046 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Records Retention source traceability [WFT-046] — the draft gave the central WFT-046-R05 decision no source-to-output locator; 2) Records Retention handoff usability [WFT-046] — 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-046 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: keep WFT-046-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-046-R04 only after WFT-046-R02, and flag the second window when demand 56 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-046-ROW1 reads: “WFT-046-R01 | keep WFT-046-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-046-R04 only after WFT-046-R02, and flag the second window when demand 56 exceeds the stated capacity | evidence locator: WFT-046-R01 | static status: 10/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Records Retention source traceability [WFT-046] and Records Retention handoff usability [WFT-046]. The frozen final text passed Records Retention task fidelity [WFT-046], Records Retention rule accuracy [WFT-046], Records Retention exception handling [WFT-046], Records Retention source traceability [WFT-046], and Records Retention handoff usability [WFT-046]. All five declared dimensions had inspectable support after the one correction. The final constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Records Retention task fidelity [WFT-046] | Pass | Pass | WFT-046 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Records Retention task fidelity [WFT-046].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-046-R05, the declared Records Retention rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Records Retention rule accuracy [WFT-046] | Pass | Pass | WFT-046 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Records Retention rule accuracy [WFT-046].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-046-R05, the declared Records Retention rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Records Retention exception handling [WFT-046] | Pass | Pass | WFT-046 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Records Retention exception handling [WFT-046].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-046-R05, the declared Records Retention rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Records Retention source traceability [WFT-046] | Fail | Pass | WFT-046 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Records Retention source traceability [WFT-046].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-046-R05, the declared Records Retention rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Records Retention handoff usability [WFT-046] | Fail | Pass | WFT-046 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Records Retention handoff usability [WFT-046].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-046-R05, the declared Records Retention 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-046 kept “update a records retention schedule from policy changes” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.
- WFT-046 made the central handling—keep WFT-046-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-046-R04 only after WFT-046-R02, and flag the second window when demand 56 exceeds the stated capacity—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.
- WFT-046 earned final passes for Records Retention task fidelity [WFT-046] and Records Retention rule accuracy [WFT-046] under the same frozen scoring rules.
What failed or remained weak
- WFT-046’s first draft failed Records Retention source traceability [WFT-046]; one correction repaired it, but the initial defect remains part of the published audit trail.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A revised schedule and an amendment-to-record trace will verify every changed period and disposition rule.
- WFT-046 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- WFT-046 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.
- WFT-046 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A revised schedule and an amendment-to-record trace will verify every changed period and disposition rule.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- WFT-046 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Records Retention fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- WFT-046 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.