{
 "entity": "deepseek-v4-pro",
 "entity_type": "model",
 "category": "Meetings & notes",
 "suite": "suite-2026-08-tasks7/meetings",
 "model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro",
 "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": 86,
 "caps": 0,
 "cost_usd": 0.1752,
 "started_at": "2026-08-28T13:35:39.759Z",
 "finished_at": "2026-08-28T13:39:09.535Z",
 "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": "**Meeting Notes – Product Standup**\n\n**Export Feature Release (Thursday)**\n- Dan reported an open CSV encoding bug that mangles the pound sign for one customer, potentially affecting the entire UK locale.\n- Sam proposed shipping Thursday and issuing a hotfix if needed.\n- Dan expressed a preference to hold until the issue is resolved.\n- No decision was reached.\n\n**Next Steps**\n- Dan will investigate whether the encoding issue is isolated to a single customer or is locale-wide.\n- The team will reconvene on Wednesday to discuss the findings and determine the path forward.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 8653,
   "cost": 0.00107486028,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate, captures both positions, open question, defers decision to Wednesday, no false decision implied, concise and under word limit."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the open question, both positions, Dan's action item, and the deferred decision without implying a final choice was made. It is concise, accurate, and well under the 180-word limit."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurately records the open issue, Sam’s ship-and-hotfix position, Dan’s hold position, Dan’s investigation, and deferral to Wednesday. It explicitly avoids implying a shipping 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\": null,\n  \"thursday_deck\": \"Tom\",\n  \"chase_ash\": \"Maya\"\n}",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 4340,
   "cost": 0.00147552,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Correctly identifies owners, final owner for chase_ash, null for unassigned support task, matches exact format."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, including the strict formatting constraints. It correctly identifies the final owners for each task based on the transcript."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "All four owners are correctly identified, including final ownership of chasing Ash. The response uses exactly the required keys, valid JSON, and no extra prose."
    }
   ],
   "machine_violation": false,
   "machine_reasons": []
  },
  {
   "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": "July’s monthly churn was 3.1%, while the full-quarter figure reached 4.2%. This represents an increase from the previous quarter’s rate of 2.8%.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 11662,
   "cost": 0.0002704,
   "task_score": 5,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate corrected figures, clear monthly vs quarterly distinction, no retracted reading, under 70 words. Minor: could explicitly note initial figure was corrected, but overall solid and concise."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 5,
     "violates": true,
     "reasoning": "Accurately captures the corrected figures and distinguishes monthly from quarterly churn. However, it fails the structural constraint by providing a single paragraph instead of a three-line summary."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 5,
     "violates": true,
     "reasoning": "Figures and comparison are accurate, clearly distinguishes July monthly from quarterly churn, and omits the retracted reading. However, it does not meet the explicit three-line format requirement."
    }
   ],
   "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 4. Outsourcing of Support Services\n\nRaj stated that transferring support to the outsourcer would risk the attribute customers specifically value. Kate stated that the current arrangement costs eleven thousand pounds per month, which the organisation does not have. Raj argued that churn would cost more. Kate responded that he did not know that. Raj replied that she did not know that either. The Chair ruled that the matter be taken to the September board meeting, supported by costed figures for both positions. The disagreement was not resolved.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 14230,
   "cost": 0.00150907536,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate, neutral, includes both attributed positions, chair's ruling, unresolved status, avoids banned words, under 150 words. Minor stylistic tightness could improve slightly."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the exchange in a formal minutes format, accurately reflecting both positions, the chair's ruling, and the unresolved nature of the disagreement. All constraints, including word count and banned words, are st"
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurately and neutrally records Raj’s and Kate’s opposing positions with named attribution, the Chair’s ruling to take numbers to September board, and that the disagreement remained unresolved. It is formal, concise, under 150 words, and a"
    }
   ],
   "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": "The team debated rebuilding versus patching onboarding but couldn’t decide because no one knew the support-ticket volume blocking the decision.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 833,
   "cost": 0.0002535,
   "task_score": 8,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Concise, under 30 words, captures the blocked decision and missing ticket data accurately; slightly awkward phrasing at end."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurately captures the state of play in a single sentence under 30 words. The phrasing at the end is slightly clunky, but it is highly useful and follows all constraints."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurately captures the unresolved rebuild-versus-patch decision and the missing support-ticket volume. It is concise and within 30 words, though it omits the agreed next step to pull the ticket numbers."
    }
   ],
   "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": "The renewal date is the sixteenth, as confirmed in the contract. The usage report must be submitted before that date, or the contract will auto-renew on last year’s expensive tier.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 4891,
   "cost": 0.00157818,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, meets all constraints, correct date, evidence source, and consequence stated; under 80 words; no invented names/roles."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly extracts the required information, meets all constraints, and is highly concise and useful for a busy professional."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurately states the sixteenth, identifies the contract as evidence, and explains that missing the usage report triggers auto-renewal on last year’s expensive tier. It is concise, clear, and uses no invented names or 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 noted a long-term possibility of a Manchester office if northern accounts keep growing; no decision or plan made.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 3279,
   "cost": 0.00169998,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Correctly avoids recording it as a decision/action, concise, under 50 words, accurate. Slightly could be clearer it's not an action item explicitly, but overall solid."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the speculative nature of the CEO's comment without recording it as a firm plan or action, adhering strictly to the constraints and word limit."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurately records the conditional, speculative comment and explicitly avoids treating it as a decision, plan, or action. Concise and 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: Our conversation\n\n[Name],\n\nI recognise how serious this is. The reporting workload has doubled to nearly two weeks a month, and it has pushed out the customer interviews that are central to your role. I’m sorry you felt you couldn’t raise it earlier because everyone is stretched.\n\nHere is what we agreed:\n\n- I am taking the monthly board pack off your plate, effective immediately.\n- Please send me a list of all recurring reports you produce, by Friday.\n- The customer interviews will restart in September. I’ll work with you to protect that time.\n\nLet’s check in next week once the list is compiled and make sure the load becomes manageable.\n\nBest,\n[Manager name]",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 17264,
   "cost": 0.00176612436,
   "task_score": 8,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Meets constraints: no exclamation marks, under 200 words, confirms tasks and dates, avoids 'flagging' or minimizing language. Clear, professional, concise. Minor stylistic redundancy but strong overall."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures all required details from the transcript, maintains the requested serious tone without minimizing the issue or using banned phrases, contains no exclamation marks, and is well under the 200-word limit."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "It clearly confirms the manager’s ownership, the report’s Friday deliverable, and September interview restart without minimising concerns. However, calling growth from two days to nearly two weeks “doubled” is factually inaccurate and under"
    }
   ],
   "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": 1388,
   "cost": 0.00061754,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "All dates correctly computed per rules, correct JSON format with exact keys, concise and accurate."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, correctly calculates all relative dates based on the provided meeting date, and strictly adheres to the JSON format constraints with no code fences or prose."
    },
    {
     "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, uses YYYY-MM-DD strings, and includes no extra prose."
    }
   ],
   "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. Marcus spoke 61% of the time and originated every decision, yet Aisha—the sole operator of the process—spoke 2%. The meeting’s design extracted zero operational knowledge from the only person who knows the work’s friction points.\n\n2. Jo (19%) and Priya (11%) were the only other voices, but their contributions couldn’t substitute for Aisha’s lived experience. The decisions made are therefore built on untested assumptions.\n\n3. Sam’s 0% suggests the meeting didn’t create conditions for quieter voices to contribute unprompted. If Aisha’s silence is a pattern, the redesign will inherit the same blind spots the current process has.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 12780,
   "cost": 0.000460152,
   "task_score": 8,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Specific, uses numbers, addresses Aisha's role, avoids banned words/phrases, under 130 words (~105). Clear and useful, minor redundancy but solid."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, including word count and negative constraints. It provides three highly specific, insightful observations focused on the missed operational knowledge rather than behavioral critiques."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Strong, specific use of all key data and Aisha’s unique expertise. However, “zero operational knowledge” overstates what 2% speaking time proves, and the final point infers causes of Sam’s silence without evidence."
    }
   ],
   "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": "Alex, here’s your catch-up:\n\n- Confirm the rebrand timeline slip of two weeks and circulate the revised launch date.\n- The delay shifts all marketing campaign milestones; adjust the Q3 calendar and notify the creative team.\n- Share the updated rebrand schedule with the wider marketing group so everyone realigns.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 29029,
   "cost": 0.006624048,
   "task_score": 6,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 6,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Leads with action owed, cuts irrelevant items, but lacks named person context detail and drops headcount which may affect marketing hiring. Under word limit, 3 bullets, no repetition of all five items."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 6,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Follows all constraints (3 bullets, under 120 words, cuts irrelevant items). However, to meet the 3-bullet constraint, it hallucinates specific follow-up tasks rather than sticking strictly to the provided meeting facts."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Exactly three bullets and under 120 words. It correctly focuses on the marketing lead’s rebrand obligation and excludes irrelevant items. Minor issue: later bullets add inferred campaign/creative actions and repeat schedule communication no"
    }
   ],
   "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 the SOW signed before starting the discovery phase. The client requests net 30, but our standard is net 15. ARR stands at $420,000. For the audit, contact Grant Thornton, not Deloitte.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 181735,
   "cost": 0.0121858725,
   "task_score": 8,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, correctly handles corrections; under 120 words. Could slightly clarify Deloitte was a self-correction vs transcription error, but no real ambiguity flagged issue exists."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response cleans the text well and meets the word count. However, it fails to explicitly flag any ambiguity as requested (e.g., whether 'four twenty thousand' meant 420,000 or 4,020,000)."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurately corrects obvious transcription errors, preserves the spoken Deloitte-to-Grant Thornton correction, and clearly summarizes all four points. It is concise, professional, and well under 120 words."
    }
   ],
   "machine_violation": false,
   "machine_reasons": []
  }
 ]
}