{ "entity": "gemini-3-5-flash", "entity_type": "model", "category": "Meetings & notes", "suite": "suite-2026-08-tasks7/meetings", "model": "google/gemini-3.5-flash", "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": 0, "cost_usd": 0.2714, "started_at": "2026-08-28T13:55:28.849Z", "finished_at": "2026-08-28T13:56:25.581Z", "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: Export Feature Release**\n\n**Open Question:**\nShould the team ship the export feature this Thursday or hold the release due to an open CSV encoding bug that mangles the pound sign (£)?\n\n**Two Positions:**\n* **Hold:** Dan advocates holding the release to avoid shipping with the encoding bug.\n* **Ship and Hotfix:** Sam suggests shipping on Thursday as scheduled and deploying a hotfix afterward.\n\n**Investigation:**\n* **Dan** will investigate the scope of the encoding bug to determine if it is isolated to a single customer or if it affects the entire UK locale.\n\n**Next Steps:**\nNo decision has been made regarding whether to ship or hold the release. The decision is deferred to Wednesday, when the team will reconvene to review Dan's findings and determine the path forward.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 7688, "cost": 0.0104205, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, meets constraint clearly, well-organized; slightly exceeds concise word target but likely under 180 words, minor formatting verbosity." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately records the open shipping question, both positions, Dan’s scope investigation, and deferral to Wednesday. It explicitly avoids implying a ship-or-hold decision. Clear, concise, and well under 180 words." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Perfectly captures open question, positions, Dan's investigation, deferred decision; no implied resolution; under 180 words; clear and useful." } ], "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": 5194, "cost": 0.0073995, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correct final owners, valid JSON, exact keys, no extra text." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All four ownership assignments are correct, including final ownership of chasing Ash. The response is valid JSON, contains exactly the required keys, and adds no extra prose." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Exact match to transcript ownerships and final assignees; perfect JSON format with required keys only." } ], "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": "Quarterly churn rose to 4.2%, up from 2.8% in the previous quarter.\nMonthly churn for July alone stood at 3.1%. \nThis represents an upward trend in the overall quarterly figures.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 8729, "cost": 0.012051, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correct figures and clear monthly/quarterly distinction, avoids retracted reading, but slightly redundant third line and omits explicit note that initial July figure was corrected/retracted, weakening full compliance." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately reports corrected quarterly and July monthly churn, including prior-quarter comparison, without repeating the retracted figure. It meets the three-line and under-70-word requirements. The final line is somewhat redundant and over" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Perfect three-line summary with corrected figures, clear monthly/quarterly distinction, no retracted fact, under 70 words." } ], "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: Customer Support Outsourcing**\n\nThe committee discussed the proposal to transition customer support to an external provider. \n\nRaj opposed the move, stating that outsourcing would damage the core service quality valued by customers, and argued that the financial impact of resulting customer churn would exceed any savings. \n\nKate advocated for the transition, stating that maintaining the current service costs £11,000 per month, which the organization cannot afford. She disputed the financial projections regarding customer churn.\n\nThe disagreement remained unresolved. \n\nThe Chair ruled that the issue be deferred to the September board meeting. Both proposals must be presented with supporting financial data, detailing both the operational savings and the projected costs of customer churn.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 8191, "cost": 0.0108765, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Captures both positions and chair ruling, notes unresolved status, avoids banned words, but adds mild editorializing/paraphrase beyond quotes and slightly reframes exchange, reducing precision." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately records Raj’s and Kate’s opposing positions with named attribution, notes the unresolved disagreement, and captures the Chair’s September-board ruling for financial evidence on both sides. Formal, concise, under 150 words, and av" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate formal minutes with equal named attribution, unresolved note, chair ruling. No banned words, under 150. Minor polish only." } ], "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 because nobody knew the support-ticket volume; the choice is postponed until those numbers are retrieved.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 8969, "cost": 0.012552, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, single sentence, 26 words within limit, clearly conveys blocked decision due to missing ticket data. Minor stylistic redundancy but strong overall." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately captures the central outcome: no rebuild-versus-patch decision was made because support-ticket volume was unknown, pending retrieval of the numbers. It is one clear sentence and 26 words." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Exact one-sentence summary under 30 words that precisely captures the blocked decision pending 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 this date. If the report is not received in time, the contract will auto-renew on last year's more expensive tier.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 4630, "cost": 0.0063825, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, meets constraints, under 80 words, no invented names. Slightly could clarify 'sixteenth' month but faithful to transcript." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately states the sixteenth, identifies the contract as evidence, and correctly explains automatic renewal on last year’s more expensive tier if the usage report is late. Clear, concise, and under 80 words." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets all requirements exactly: correct date from contract, consequence stated, no invented names, 38 words." } ], "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 note was recorded because the Manchester comment was purely speculative, and the audit query was a conversational transition rather than a decision, plan, or action.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 12975, "cost": 0.014565, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly avoids recording Manchester as decision/action, concise, within word limit. Slightly awkward on audit part but acceptable judgement overall." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly identifies the Manchester remark as speculation, not a commitment, and reasonably treats the unanswered audit question as a transition rather than a recordable decision or action. Concise, clear, and under 50 words." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly judges no note needed; speculative only. Concise, under limit, useful and clear." } ], "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: Workload and reporting adjustments\n\nHi [Name],\n\nThank you for being candid in our meeting today. It is clear that your workload has become unsustainable, with reporting now taking up two weeks of your month instead of two days. This has stopped you from doing the customer interviews you were hired for, which is a serious issue we must resolve.\n\nTo address this immediately, I am taking back ownership of the monthly board pack. \n\nBy this Friday, please send me a complete list of all other recurring reports you currently manage. \n\nWith the board pack removed and the remaining reports reviewed, you will restart your customer interviews in September. \n\nI appreciate you speaking up about this. We will work together to get your focus back to where it needs to be.\n\nBest,\n\n[My Name]", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 8030, "cost": 0.0114945, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "Meets content requirements but uses exclamation-free text; contains 'appreciate you speaking up' which risks minimizing feel similar to 'flagging' phrase, borderline violation. Slightly informal, minor redundancy, but generally clear and co" }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Clearly confirms the manager taking back the board pack, the report’s Friday deliverable, and September interview restart. It appropriately acknowledges the workload as unsustainable. Thanking them for candor/speaking up is slightly close t" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately covers taken-on board pack, Friday list owed, September interviews restart. Treats issue as serious without minimising or routine flagging thanks. No !; under 200 words. Minor thanking phrasing." } ], "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": 8107, "cost": 0.0133305, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All four dates correctly computed per given rules; JSON format matches exact required keys with 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 valid YYYY-MM-DD values and no extra content." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All four dates correctly resolved from 2026-05-12 per the exact rules given; output is pure JSON with the required keys only." } ], "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. **Operational reality was excluded:** Aisha, the only attendee who has actually run the process being redesigned, spoke for just 48 seconds (2%). The plan lacks her essential practical insights.\n\n2. **Decisions lack peer-testing:** Marcus spoke for over 24 minutes (61%) and proposed 100% of the decisions. The redesign reflects a single perspective rather than a stress-tested team consensus.\n\n3. **Latent expertise went untapped:** Sam (0%), Ben (7%), and Priya (11%) represent a wealth of unshared feedback. We proceeded without uncovering the risks or alternative solutions they might have raised.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 8945, "cost": 0.0114615, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Specific and mostly compliant, avoids banned words, under 130 words. Minor issue: 'single perspective' implies dominance-adjacent framing, and bolded headers add slight clutter but not disallowed." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Clear, accurate, and under 130 words; it correctly highlights Aisha’s 48 seconds and Marcus’s 61%/all decisions. It could be stronger by addressing Jo’s 19% and avoiding unsupported claims that others necessarily had a “wealth” of expertise" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate numbers and Aisha focus; three clear observations on missed learning; no banned terms; under 130 words; highly useful and concise." } ], "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 is your quick catch-up from today's meeting:\n\n* **Action Required:** Please review and confirm the proposed two-week slip for the rebrand timeline.\n* **Rebrand Timeline:** The launch is delayed by two weeks, pending your team's final confirmation.\n* **Q3 Headcount:** Two company roles were approved and one deferred; please check if this impacts your marketing hiring pipeline.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 11840, "cost": 0.0154065, "task_score": 6, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets bullet/word constraints, leads with action, cuts outage/parking/hosting, but bullet 1 and 2 redundantly repeat rebrand item, wasting a bullet slot." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "It correctly prioritizes Sarah’s rebrand confirmation and meets the three-bullet, under-120-word requirements. However, the first two bullets substantially duplicate the same rebrand point, and the headcount item is speculative rather than " }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Exact 3 bullets under 120 words; leads with marketing lead's owed rebrand confirm; keeps relevant items only; 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": "**Summary:**\n\n* **Project Launch:** The SOW must be signed before the discovery phase can begin.\n* **Payment Terms:** The client is requesting Net 30, which conflicts with our standard Net 15 terms.\n* **ARR (Ambiguity Flag):** The speaker stated ARR is 420k, but then corrected themselves to \"four twenty thousand.\" **[FLAG]** Please clarify the exact ARR, as \"four twenty thousand\" is ambiguous and could represent a transcription error for a different value (e.g., $420,000 or $4.2 million).\n* **Audit:** Contact Grant Thornton regarding the audit (the speaker explicitly corrected this from Deloitte).", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 17114, "cost": 0.023217, "task_score": 5, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 5, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly identifies Deloitte→Grant Thornton as spoken correction, but wrongly flags ARR as ambiguous when 420k and 'four twenty thousand' are the same value—a factual error, not real ambiguity." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly fixes SOW/discovery and records the Deloitte-to-Grant Thornton self-correction. However, 420K and “four twenty thousand” both indicate $420,000; flagging ARR as ambiguous and suggesting $4.2M is unjustified and reduces accuracy." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 5, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Misflags ARR restatement (420k=420k) as ambiguity; correctly notes Deloitte fix. Usable but inaccurate on key task point." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] } ] }