{ "entity": "deepseek-v4-flash", "entity_type": "model", "category": "Meetings & notes", "suite": "suite-2026-08-tasks7/meetings", "model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash", "judges": [ "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "openai/gpt-5.6-terra" ], "judge_protocol": "judge-2026-08b", "anchors": "solo-2026-08-a", "kind": "solo", "decider": false, "note": null, "score": 81, "caps": 1, "cost_usd": 0.1637, "started_at": "2026-08-28T13:34:32.745Z", "finished_at": "2026-08-28T13:35:39.754Z", "tasks": [ { "id": "mt1", "name": "The decision that was never made", "prompt": "Transcript, product standup, six minutes. PRIYA: 'So do we ship the export feature Thursday or hold it?' DAN: 'I'd hold it. The CSV encoding thing is still open.' PRIYA: 'How open?' DAN: 'I mean it works, it just mangles the pound sign for one customer.' SAM: 'One customer or one locale?' DAN: 'One customer. I think. Could be locale.' PRIYA: 'If it's locale that's everyone in the UK.' SAM: 'We could ship Thursday and hotfix.' PRIYA: 'Mmm.' DAN: 'I'd rather not.' PRIYA: 'OK let's talk Wednesday when Dan's had a look.' SAM: 'Fine.' Write the meeting notes. There is a trap here and it is the whole task: NO DECISION WAS MADE about shipping Thursday. The notes must record the open question, the two positions, what Dan will find out, and that the decision is deferred to Wednesday — without stating or implying that a ship-or-hold decision was reached. Write under 180 words.", "output": "**Product Standup Notes – Export Feature** \n- **Status:** Open question on shipping Thursday. \n- **Issue:** CSV encoding mangles the pound sign for one customer (possibly locale-specific). \n- **Positions:** Dan prefers to hold; Sam suggests shipping with a hotfix. \n- **Action:** Dan will investigate whether the issue is isolated to one customer or affects all UK users. \n- **Decision:** Deferred to Wednesday’s standup, after Dan’s findings.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 4679, "cost": 0.000066864, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately captures open question, positions, action item, and defers decision without implying resolution. Concise, clear, under word limit, well-formatted." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the open question, the two positions, Dan's action item, and the deferral to Wednesday without implying a final decision was made. It is well under the 180-word limit." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately records the unresolved shipping question, both positions, Dan’s investigation scope, and deferral to Wednesday. It does not imply a ship-or-hold decision. Clear, concise, and under 180 words." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt2", "name": "Actions, owners, and the one with neither", "prompt": "Transcript extract. MAYA: 'I'll get the pricing page updated before the campaign goes out.' TOM: 'And someone needs to tell support about the new tiers.' MAYA: 'Yeah.' TOM: 'I can do the deck for Thursday.' MAYA: 'Perfect. Oh and the legal review — Ash said he'd look but that was three weeks ago.' TOM: 'I'll chase Ash.' MAYA: 'Actually leave it, I'll chase him, I owe him an email anyway.' Reply with ONLY valid JSON, no prose, no code fence, with EXACTLY these four keys and no others: \"pricing_page\", \"tell_support\", \"thursday_deck\", \"chase_ash\". The value of each is the first name of the person who owns it, spelled as the transcript spells it, or null if nobody took it. Where ownership changed during the conversation, give the FINAL owner.", "output": "{\n \"pricing_page\": \"Maya\",\n \"tell_support\": \"Tom\",\n \"thursday_deck\": \"Tom\",\n \"chase_ash\": \"Maya\"\n}", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 1328, "cost": 0.00014388, "task_score": 5, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 4, "violates": false, "reasoning": "tell_support incorrectly assigned to Tom; nobody explicitly took ownership of informing support, should be null. Other three correct." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 5, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Incorrectly assigns 'tell_support' to Tom; the transcript says 'someone needs to tell support' but nobody explicitly claims it, so it should be null." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All keys and JSON formatting are correct. Pricing page, Thursday deck, and final Ash follow-up ownership are correct. However, Tom did not take ownership of telling support; he only noted that someone needed to do it, so it should be null." } ], "machine_violation": true, "machine_reasons": [ "wrong answer at $.tell_support: expected null, got \"Tom\" (string, not null)" ] }, { "id": "mt3", "name": "The number said twice", "prompt": "Transcript extract, board update. FINANCE LEAD: 'Churn was four point two percent in July… sorry, four point two for the quarter, July on its own was three point one.' CHAIR: 'And that's up?' FINANCE LEAD: 'Up from two point eight the quarter before.' CHAIR: 'Right.' Write the three-line summary of the churn position for people who were not in the room. It must carry the corrected figures, must make clear which number is monthly and which is quarterly, and must not present the retracted reading as fact. Under 70 words.", "output": "- Quarterly churn is 4.2%, up from 2.8% in the prior quarter.\n- The monthly rate for July (the only month reported in the quarter) is 3.1%.\n- The initial mention of 4.2% for July was a correction – that figure is the quarterly result, not the monthly one.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 2782, "cost": 0.00005326496, "task_score": 7, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 7, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, clear, under 70 words, distinguishes monthly/quarterly, avoids stating retracted figure as fact, though third bullet slightly redundant/awkward." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Follows constraints, but the third line explains a speaking error from the meeting which is irrelevant and confusing for people who were not in the room, reducing usefulness." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately distinguishes quarterly 4.2% from July’s monthly 3.1% and notes the prior-quarter comparison. It avoids presenting the retracted July figure as fact. “The only month reported in the quarter” is slightly awkward and potentially am" } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt4", "name": "Minutes for a meeting with a disagreement in it", "prompt": "Two people disagreed, publicly, and were not reconciled. RAJ: 'Moving support to the outsourcer will cost us the thing customers actually rate us for.' KATE: 'It costs us eleven grand a month we do not have.' RAJ: 'And churn costs more.' KATE: 'You don't know that.' RAJ: 'Neither do you.' CHAIR: 'We'll take it to the September board with numbers on both.' Write formal minutes of this item. Record both positions with equal weight and named attribution, record the chair's ruling, and record that the disagreement is unresolved. Do not smooth it into consensus, do not editorialise about who is right, and do not use the words 'productive', 'robust' or 'healthy' to describe the exchange. Under 150 words.", "output": "**Item: Outsourcing of Support Services** \nRaj stated that moving support to the outsourcer would cost the company the attribute customers rate them for. Kate stated that it costs £11,000 per month the company does not have. Raj argued that churn costs more; Kate responded that he did not know that; Raj replied that she did not know either. The disagreement remains unresolved. The Chair ruled that the matter would be taken to the September board meeting with supporting data on both positions.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 5492, "cost": 0.00013104, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, attributed equally, notes unresolved status, avoids banned words, concise under 150 words. Minor lack of formal minute structure (no header/attendees) slightly limits polish." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the exchange as formal minutes, attributes both positions equally, notes the unresolved status and the chair's ruling, and adheres to all negative constraints and word limits." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately records both attributed positions, the unresolved disagreement, and the Chair’s ruling to take quantified evidence to the September board. Formal, neutral, concise, and under 150 words; banned terms are absent." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt5", "name": "Fourteen minutes, one sentence", "prompt": "A fourteen-minute agenda item, summarised: the team debated whether to rebuild the onboarding flow or patch it; engineering estimated six weeks for a rebuild and 'about a fortnight, probably' for patching; design argued the patch preserves the confusing three-step signup that generates most support tickets; the head of product asked what the support-ticket volume actually is and nobody in the room knew; the item ended with someone agreeing to pull the ticket numbers before any decision. Write ONE sentence, maximum 30 words, that a director skimming the notes would read instead of the fourteen minutes. It must land the actual state of play — that the decision is blocked on a number nobody had.", "output": "Decision stalled: rebuild vs. patch debated, but no one knew support-ticket volume, so action awaits that data.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 921, "cost": 0.00001719, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, under 30 words, captures blocked decision. Slightly terse but clear and useful for a director skimming notes." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing a concise, one-sentence summary under 30 words that accurately captures the blocked state of the decision." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Concise single sentence accurately states the rebuild-versus-patch debate and, crucially, that no decision can proceed until unknown support-ticket volume is obtained." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt6", "name": "Crosstalk", "prompt": "Raw diarised transcript with the overlaps automatic transcription leaves in. SPEAKER 1: 'the renewal is on the fifteenth so we—' SPEAKER 2: '—sorry, sixteenth' SPEAKER 1: 'sixteenth, so we need the' SPEAKER 3: 'is that confirmed?' SPEAKER 2: 'it's in the contract' SPEAKER 1: '—need the usage report before then or they'll auto-renew on last year's tier' SPEAKER 3: 'which is the expensive one' SPEAKER 1: 'which is the expensive one, yes'. Write the clean note. State the renewal date correctly, state where that date is evidenced, and state the consequence of missing the usage report. Do not invent speaker names or roles that the transcript does not give. Under 80 words.", "output": "Renewal date: 16th (evidenced in the contract). Usage report required before then; otherwise, auto-renewal occurs on last year’s tier, which is the expensive one.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 1313, "cost": 0.00002421, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, meets constraints, under word limit, no invented names. Slightly terse but complete and correct." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly extracts the required information, follows all constraints, does not invent details, and is highly concise and useful." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately states the corrected 16th renewal date, identifies the contract as evidence, and explains that missing the usage report triggers auto-renewal at last year’s expensive tier. Concise, clear, and does not invent roles." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt7", "name": "The musing that is not a commitment", "prompt": "Transcript extract. CEO: 'Long term I could see us opening a Manchester office, maybe next year, if the northern accounts keep growing like this. Anyway — Sarah, where are we on the audit?' Write the notes entry for this moment, or explain in one line why there isn't one. The test is judgement: a passing answer does not record 'Manchester office to open next year' as a plan, a decision, or an action, because it is none of those. Under 50 words.", "output": "CEO speculated on Manchester office, contingent on growth; no decision. Then asked Sarah for audit update.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 5269, "cost": 0.00009996, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly avoids treating Manchester as decision/action, notes contingency, mentions transition to audit. Concise, under 50 words. Minor: could be slightly clearer it's not a notes-worthy item." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately captures the speculative nature of the Manchester office comment without recording it as a decision, and includes the pivot to the audit. Perfectly concise and under the word limit." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately records the conditional speculation without treating it as a plan, decision, or action, and captures the audit-status question. It is concise, clear, and well under 50 words." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt8", "name": "The follow-up email nobody has to rewrite", "prompt": "From this one-to-one, write the follow-up email the manager sends. Transcript: the report said they are underwater, that the reporting work has grown from two days a month to nearly two weeks, that they have stopped doing the customer interviews they were hired for, and that they did not want to raise it because everyone is busy; the manager agreed to take the monthly board pack back, asked for a list of the recurring reports by Friday, and said the customer interviews restart in September. Write the email. It must confirm what the manager has taken on, what the report owes and by when, and what changes in September — and it must not minimise what was said or thank them for 'flagging' it as though it were routine. No exclamation marks. Under 200 words.", "output": "Subject: Follow-up on our conversation \n\nDear [Name], \n\nThank you for being candid about the pressure you are under. I understand that the reporting workload has grown from two days a month to nearly two weeks, and that customer interviews have been set aside. You made clear that you did not raise this sooner because everyone is busy, and I take that seriously. \n\nTo address this, I have taken back the monthly board pack. Please send me a list of the recurring reports you currently produce by this Friday. In September, the customer interviews will restart as originally intended. \n\nThis is not a trivial matter, and I appreciate you sharing the full extent of the situation. Let me know if there is anything else needed. \n\nBest, \n[Manager]", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 5565, "cost": 0.00015862, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "Uses 'sharing' language and 'thank you for being candid' which echoes minimizing/flagging tone; also has exclamation-free but slightly downplays via 'let me know if anything else needed.' Otherwise covers required points, under 200 words." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures all required details from the transcript, maintains an appropriate, non-minimizing tone without using the banned phrase, and strictly adheres to the word count and punctuation constraints." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately confirms the board pack transfer, required report list and Friday deadline, and September restart of customer interviews. It acknowledges the scale and seriousness of the workload without minimising it, uses no exclamation marks," } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt9", "name": "Extract the dates, resolve the relatives", "prompt": "The meeting took place on Tuesday 12 May 2026. Transcript: 'the deposit clears end of next week'; 'we present to them a week on Thursday'; 'the filing is due the last working day of the month'; 'Ana's back from leave on the 1st'. Reply with ONLY valid JSON, no prose, no code fence, with EXACTLY these four keys and no others: \"deposit_clears\", \"presentation\", \"filing_due\", \"ana_returns\". Each value is a date string in YYYY-MM-DD. Resolve every relative date against the meeting date. 'End of next week' means the Friday of the week after the meeting week. 'A week on Thursday' means the Thursday after this coming Thursday. 'The last working day of the month' means the latest Monday-to-Friday date in that month. 'The 1st' means the next 1st after the meeting.", "output": "{\n \"deposit_clears\": \"2026-05-22\",\n \"presentation\": \"2026-05-21\",\n \"filing_due\": \"2026-05-29\",\n \"ana_returns\": \"2026-06-01\"\n}", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 1414, "cost": 0.00002907, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All dates correctly computed per given rules; JSON format matches exactly required keys and structure." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, provides only the requested JSON without code fences, and accurately calculates all dates based on the provided rules." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All four dates are correctly resolved from Tuesday 2026-05-12. The response is valid JSON, contains exactly the required keys, and uses YYYY-MM-DD date strings." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt10", "name": "Who has not spoken", "prompt": "A forty-minute planning meeting, six attendees. Speaking time: Marcus 61%, Jo 19%, Priya 11%, Ben 7%, Aisha 2%, Sam 0%. Every decision recorded in the meeting was proposed by Marcus. Aisha is the only attendee who has run the process being redesigned. Write the three observations you would give the chair, privately, before they run the next one. Be specific to these numbers and to who Aisha is. Do not recommend a generic 'round robin' or 'icebreaker', and do not describe anyone as 'dominating' — the point is what the meeting failed to learn, not who behaved badly. Under 130 words.", "output": "1. **Aisha’s silence is a critical blind spot.** With 0% speaking time, the only person who has run the process being redesigned contributed nothing. Her operational knowledge is absent from every decision, all proposed by Marcus. \n2. **Marcus’s 61% speaking share and sole proposal power** means the meeting likely heard one perspective—his—on every recorded decision. The redesign risks missing flaws or alternatives that others (especially Aisha) could surface. \n3. **Sam’s 0% and Ben’s 7%** suggest two attendees were effectively non-participants. Next time, explicitly invite Aisha to describe a specific pain point from running the process, and ask Sam or Ben to respond first, before Marcus speaks.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 4891, "cost": 0.00004176, "task_score": 5, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "Good specific content but likely exceeds 130-word limit; otherwise meets constraints, avoids banned terms, addresses Aisha and numbers well." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 5, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response misstates Aisha's speaking time as 0% (she had 2%, Sam had 0%), failing the instruction to use the specific numbers provided. Otherwise, it follows negative constraints and offers useful, actionable feedback." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "It correctly highlights Marcus’s 61% share, his sole proposal role, and Aisha’s unique operational experience. But it inaccurately says Aisha had 0% speaking time (she had 2%) and overstates that her knowledge was absent from every decision" } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt11", "name": "Notes for the person who missed it", "prompt": "Write the catch-up note for one named person. The meeting covered five items: the hosting migration (done, no action), Q3 headcount (two roles approved, one deferred), the outage post-mortem (actions on the infrastructure team), the rebrand timeline (slipping two weeks, marketing to confirm) and office parking (unresolved, nobody cares). The person who missed it is the marketing lead. Write their catch-up note. It must lead with what they personally now owe, keep what genuinely affects marketing, and cut what does not — a note that repeats all five items in order has failed the task. Use exactly 3 bullet points and no more. Under 120 words.", "output": "- You owe: confirm the rebrand timeline with your team – it’s slipped two weeks, and marketing needs to sign off on the new dates. \n- Two marketing headcount roles were approved, but one deferred – review the impact on your Q3 plans. \n- Hosting migration is complete (no action needed from you), and the outage post-mortem actions sit with infrastructure. Parking remains unresolved but no one cares.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 13362, "cost": 0.0005204, "task_score": 4, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets 3-bullet/120-word format and leads with owed action, but inaccurately labels headcount as 'marketing headcount' and includes irrelevant parking item, against instruction to cut what doesn't affect marketing." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 3, "violates": true, "reasoning": "The response explicitly failed the instruction to cut items that do not affect marketing, instead including all five meeting items (hosting, outage, parking) in the final bullet point." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 4, "violates": false, "reasoning": "It meets the three-bullet and length limits and leads with the marketing lead’s owed action. However, it needlessly includes hosting, infrastructure post-mortem, and parking, effectively repeating all five topics rather than cutting irrelev" } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt12", "name": "The transcript is wrong", "prompt": "Automatic transcription, and it has clearly misheard things. 'we need to get the S O W signed before we can start the disco very phase' … 'the client wants net thirty but our standard is net fifteen' … 'ARR is at four hundred and twenty K, sorry, four twenty thousand' … 'talk to Deloitte about the audit — no, not Deloitte, the other one, Grant Thornton'. Write the cleaned summary. Silently fix the transcription errors that are obvious from context, but where the AMBIGUITY IS REAL rather than a mishearing, flag it instead of guessing. One of these four is a genuine correction the speaker made out loud, not a transcription error, and it must be treated as such. Under 120 words.", "output": "We need to get the SOW signed before we can start the discovery phase. The client wants net thirty but our standard is net fifteen. ARR is at four hundred and twenty thousand. Talk to Grant Thornton about the audit.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 42321, "cost": 0.00134737, "task_score": 6, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly fixes transcription errors and handles Deloitte correction, but fails to flag the ARR ambiguity (420K stated twice, seemingly consistent, but task implies possible ambiguity) and doesn't note the self-correction explicitly." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response cleans the transcription errors well and meets the word count. However, it acts more as a cleaned transcript than a 'summary', and fails to explicitly highlight the speaker's out-loud correction as requested." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately resolves obvious transcription errors, preserves the speaker’s explicit correction to Grant Thornton, and correctly states ARR as 420 thousand. The concise summary is clear, complete, and under 120 words." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] } ] }