{ "entity": "gemini-3-1-pro", "entity_type": "model", "category": "Meetings & notes", "suite": "suite-2026-08-tasks7/meetings", "model": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "judges": [ "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "x-ai/grok-4.5" ], "judge_protocol": "judge-2026-08b", "anchors": "solo-2026-08-a", "kind": "solo", "decider": false, "note": null, "score": 86, "caps": 1, "cost_usd": 0.3622, "started_at": "2026-08-28T13:54:12.012Z", "finished_at": "2026-08-28T13:55:28.847Z", "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**\n\n**Open Question:** \n* Should the team ship the export feature this Thursday or hold it?\n\n**Positions:**\n* **Dan** prefers to hold the release. There is an open CSV encoding bug that mangles the pound sign, and he wants to avoid relying on a hotfix.\n* **Sam** suggests shipping on Thursday as planned and resolving the bug later via a hotfix.\n\n**Action Item:**\n* **Dan** will investigate the CSV bug to determine if it is isolated to one specific customer or if it affects an entire locale (which would impact all UK users).\n\n**Next Steps:**\n* **Decision Deferred:** No decision was made today regarding the Thursday release. The team will review Dan's findings and make the final ship-or-hold decision on Wednesday.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 9576, "cost": 0.014518, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately captures open question, both positions, Dan's task, and explicit deferral without implying a decision. Clear, concise, under word limit." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately records the unresolved shipping question, both positions, Dan’s investigation, and Wednesday deferral without claiming a decision. Minor unsupported phrasing: “as planned” and “final” decision on Wednesday go slightly beyond the " }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Captures open question, both positions, Dan's investigation, and explicit deferral to Wednesday with no ship/hold decision implied. Under 180 words, clear and complete." } ], "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": 14613, "cost": 0.021698, "task_score": 5, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 7, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correct ownership assignments, but names given in all-caps matching speaker labels rather than natural name spelling, a minor stylistic issue." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All four required keys are present with correct final owners. Maya owns pricing page and chasing Ash; Tom owns Thursday deck; nobody took tell_support. JSON-only instruction followed." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Exact match to transcript ownerships and final assignees; pure valid JSON with required keys only." } ], "machine_violation": true, "machine_reasons": [ "wrong answer at $.pricing_page: expected \"Maya\", got \"MAYA\"" ] }, { "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 increased to 4.2%, up from 2.8% in the previous quarter.\nThe specific monthly churn rate for July was 3.1%.\nThese confirmed figures reflect an overall upward trend in the current churn position.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 15680, "cost": 0.02376, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correct figures, distinguishes monthly/quarterly, avoids stating retracted figure as fact. Slightly redundant, third line adds little value but stays under word limit and is clear." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately states corrected quarterly and monthly figures, compares quarters correctly, omits the retracted reading, uses exactly three lines, and remains well under 70 words." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Perfect three-line summary under 70 words; correctly distinguishes monthly/quarterly figures without retracted data; clear and useful." } ], "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: Proposed Outsourcing of Customer Support**\n\nA disagreement occurred regarding the proposal to outsource customer support, which remained unresolved. \n\nRaj stated that moving support to an outsourcer would damage the customer service quality for which the company is highly rated. He argued that the resulting customer churn would ultimately cost more than outsourcing saves. \n\nKate stated that retaining in-house support costs £11,000 per month, which the company does not have the funds to cover. She disputed Raj's claim regarding the financial impact of churn due to a lack of data; Raj noted that the same lack of data applied to her position. \n\nWith the parties unreconciled, the Chair ruled that the item be deferred to the September board meeting. The Chair directed that concrete financial projections for both options be prepared and presented at that time.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 12061, "cost": 0.018318, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, balanced, attributed, notes unresolved status, avoids banned words, under 150 words. Minor stylistic smoothing but no editorializing on correctness." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately and neutrally records Raj’s and Kate’s opposing positions, their unresolved disagreement, and the Chair’s September-board direction. It is formal, concise, under 150 words, and avoids banned terms. “Deferred” slightly over-interp" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate formal minutes; equal named positions, unresolved noted, chair ruling recorded; no banned words or consensus; under 150 words." } ], "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 decision to rebuild or patch the onboarding flow is blocked pending support ticket volumes, a number nobody in the room actually had.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 15100, "cost": 0.02372, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, captures blocking issue in one sentence under 30 words (24 words), clear for a director skimming notes." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "One 20-word sentence clearly states the rebuild-versus-patch decision is blocked pending unknown support-ticket volumes, exactly capturing the requested state of play." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Perfect one-sentence summary under 30 words that exactly captures the blocked decision on unknown 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": "**Note:**\n\nThe renewal date is the 16th, as confirmed in the contract. The usage report must be submitted before this date. If the report is not provided in time, the service will automatically renew on last year's expensive tier.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 6291, "cost": 0.009074, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, meets word limit, no invented names, states date/evidence/consequence clearly. Minor stylistic simplicity but fully correct." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately states the 16th renewal date, cites the contract as evidence, and explains the consequence of missing the usage report. It is concise, clear, under 80 words, and invents no speaker names or roles." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate clean note covering date, evidence, and consequence exactly as required; concise, no inventions, well under limit." } ], "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": "No notes entry is required because the Manchester office mention is purely conditional speculation rather than a concrete decision or action, and the audit question merely transitions to the next agenda item.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 8030, "cost": 0.010372, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly identifies no action-worthy item, concise, under 50 words, meets judgement test; slightly could mention audit as next topic but adequate." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly identifies the Manchester comment as conditional speculation, not a plan or action, and reasonably notes that the audit question contains no substantive update to record. Clear, concise, and under 50 words." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly identifies speculation, not decision/action; under 50 words; clear, useful one-line explanation matching the judgement test." } ], "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 from our 1:1\n\nI appreciate your honesty today about being underwater. It is a serious issue that your reporting workload has expanded from two days to nearly two weeks a month, crowding out the customer interviews you were hired to do. Please do not stay silent about an unmanageable workload in the future just because the rest of the team is busy. \n\nTo start fixing this, I am taking the monthly board pack back onto my plate immediately. \n\nBy this Friday, please send me a complete list of your remaining recurring reports. We will review it to determine what else we can eliminate or reassign. \n\nThe objective is to clear your schedule so you can restart your customer interviews in September. \n\nWe will monitor your capacity closely moving forward to ensure you have the time to focus on your core role. \n\nBest,\n\n[Manager Name]", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 12880, "cost": 0.018086, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 7, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets constraints, no exclamation marks, under 200 words, avoids 'flagging', covers required content, though phrasing 'appreciate your honesty' borders on minimizing slightly." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Clearly confirms the manager taking back the board pack, the required report list by Friday, and customer interviews restarting in September. It acknowledges the seriousness without minimizing it. Minor softness: “objective” and “can restar" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately covers all required confirmations without minimising or routine thanks. Meets word limit, no exclamations. Minor polish only." } ], "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": 8459, "cost": 0.014234, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All four dates correctly computed per rules, correct JSON format with exact keys, no extra text." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All four dates are correctly resolved from Tuesday 2026-05-12, and the response uses exactly the required four keys with YYYY-MM-DD date strings and valid JSON." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All four dates correctly resolved from meeting of 2026-05-12 per rules; exact JSON format followed with no extras." } ], "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": "Here are three observations on what the group failed to learn:\n\n1. **Missed operational reality:** Aisha spoke for less than a minute (2%), yet she is the only attendee who has actually run this process. We redesigned a workflow without learning the practical friction points and ground truths only she possesses. \n2. **Untested proposals:** Every recorded decision originated from Marcus (61% speaking time). Because his ideas weren't weighed against alternatives, the group failed to stress-test these decisions or learn if more effective solutions existed.\n3. **Unmined blind spots:** Sam contributed 0% and Ben just 7%. In a brief 40-minute window, we left a third of the room's analytical capacity untapped, failing to learn what risks or flaws they might have identified in the new plan.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 14807, "cost": 0.021642, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Specific, accurate, respects constraints, avoids banned terms/phrases. Slightly over-detailed but under 130 words likely; concise and useful." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Three clear, specific observations use the figures accurately, including Aisha’s 48 seconds. It avoids banned recommendations and language. Minor overreach: no evidence proves Marcus’s proposals lacked alternatives or that only Aisha posses" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Precise, specific observations on missed learning from Aisha/data; follows all bans and word limit; clear and useful." } ], "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": "Hi Sarah,\n\nHere are the relevant updates from today's meeting:\n\n* **What you owe:** Please review and confirm the revised rebrand timeline.\n* **Rebrand context:** The schedule is currently slipping by two weeks, which is why we need your sign-off on the new dates.\n* **Q3 Headcount:** Two roles were approved and one was deferred. \n\n*(Note: I skipped the hosting migration, outage post-mortem, and parking discussions, as those are being handled by IT/Infra or require no action).*\n\nBest, \n[Your Name]", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 29679, "cost": 0.042874, "task_score": 6, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 5, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Leads with actionable item well, cuts irrelevant items appropriately, but includes headcount which weakly affects marketing without clear justification, and the meta-note is unnecessary. Slightly verbose but under word limit; 3 bullets used" }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "It clearly assigns Sarah’s rebrand action and accurately notes the two-week slip. However, it includes Q3 headcount without established marketing relevance and explicitly references the omitted irrelevant topics, undermining the instruction" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Leads with marketing lead's action item, keeps only relevant items (rebrand + headcount), exactly 3 bullets, under 120 words, clear and useful." } ], "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": "**Meeting Summary:**\n\n* **Next Steps:** The SOW must be signed before the discovery phase can begin. \n* **Payment Terms:** The client requested Net 30, but our standard is Net 15.\n* **Audit:** We need to speak with Grant Thornton regarding the audit. *(Note: The speaker initially said Deloitte but immediately corrected themselves out loud).*\n\n**[FLAG - Ambiguous ARR Figure]:** \nThe transcript reads: *\"ARR is at four hundred and twenty K, sorry, four twenty thousand.\"* Because 420K and 420,000 are the exact same value, the speaker's \"sorry\" implies they were trying to correct the number to something else (e.g., $4,020,000 or $420.00). Please verify the actual ARR amount, as the true figure is unclear.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 12060, "cost": 0.016796, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly identifies Deloitte/Grant Thornton as spoken correction, flags ARR ambiguity well, but exceeds 120-word limit slightly and formatting is verbose." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "It correctly fixes SOW/discovery and identifies Grant Thornton as an out-loud correction. However, 420K and 420,000 are unambiguously equivalent; flagging ARR and suggesting unrelated values is misleading. Otherwise clear and under 120 word" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly fixes mishears, treats Deloitte as spoken correction, flags identical ARR values as real ambiguity. Minor over-speculation in flag examples; clear, under limit, useful." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] } ] }