{
 "entity": "gpt-5-6-luna",
 "entity_type": "model",
 "category": "Meetings & notes",
 "suite": "suite-2026-08-tasks7/meetings",
 "model": "openai/gpt-5.6-luna",
 "judges": [
  "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
  "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
  "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": 0.1401,
 "started_at": "2026-08-28T13:52:09.933Z",
 "finished_at": "2026-08-28T13:52:43.572Z",
 "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 – Export Feature**\n\n- **Open question:** Whether to ship the export feature on Thursday remains unresolved.  \n- **Dan’s position:** Hold the release because of an open CSV-encoding issue involving the pound sign.  \n- **Sam’s position:** Consider shipping Thursday and issuing a hotfix if needed.  \n- **Issue scope:** The problem has affected one customer, but it is unclear whether the root cause is customer-specific or locale-specific. If it affects the UK locale, the impact could be broader.  \n- **Action:** Dan will investigate and clarify the scope and cause of the encoding issue.  \n- **Next step:** Revisit the ship-versus-hold decision on Wednesday, after Dan’s investigation.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 4507,
   "cost": 0.0002742,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurately captures open question, both positions, Dan's follow-up, and defers decision to Wednesday without implying resolution. Concise, clear, well under 180 words."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the open question, the differing positions, Dan's action item, and the deferred decision without implying a final choice was made. It is concise, clear, and well under the 180-word limit."
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Perfectly captures open question, positions, Dan's investigation, deferred decision; no implication of 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": "{\"pricing_page\":\"MAYA\",\"tell_support\":null,\"thursday_deck\":\"TOM\",\"chase_ash\":\"MAYA\"}",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 1548,
   "cost": 0.0001518,
   "task_score": 5,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Correct final owners and null for unassigned task; names match transcript spelling exactly; valid JSON with exact keys."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, correctly identifies the final owners based on the transcript, and strictly adheres to the JSON formatting constraints with no prose or code fences."
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Exact match to transcript ownerships and required JSON format with correct final owners."
    }
   ],
   "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": "Churn was **4.2% for the quarter**.  \n**July’s monthly churn was 3.1%**.  \nQuarterly churn increased from **2.8% in the previous quarter**.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 4345,
   "cost": 0.0002428,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate, correct figures, distinguishes monthly/quarterly, avoids retracted figure, concise. Slightly awkward phrasing but meets word limit and clarity needs."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the corrected figures, clearly distinguishes between monthly and quarterly metrics, and strictly follows the three-line and word count constraints."
    },
    {
     "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": "**Agenda Item: Outsourcing Support**\n\nRAJ stated that moving customer support to the outsourcer would jeopardise the service quality for which customers rate the company, potentially increasing churn. KATE stated that the current arrangement costs £11,000 per month, which the company cannot afford. RAJ responded that the cost of customer churn would be greater. KATE stated that this had not been demonstrated, and RAJ acknowledged that neither position was supported by definitive evidence.\n\nThe CHAIR ruled that the matter would be taken to the September Board meeting, with figures supporting both positions to be provided.\n\nThe disagreement between RAJ and KATE remained unresolved.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 3301,
   "cost": 0.0002674,
   "task_score": 9,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate, balanced, attributes both sides, records chair ruling and unresolved status, avoids banned words, under 150 words. Slightly paraphrased but faithful."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the exchange in formal minutes format, accurately reflecting both positions, the chair's ruling, and the unresolved nature of the disagreement. It strictly adheres to all constraints, including word count and"
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate formal minutes with equal named attribution, chair ruling, unresolved note. Under 150 words, no banned terms or consensus. 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": "No decision was made between rebuilding and patching onboarding; the team first needs the currently unknown support-ticket volume.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 2390,
   "cost": 0.0002094,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate, meets 30-word limit, captures blocked decision on missing ticket number; slightly less punchy than ideal but clear and concise."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the state of play in a single, concise sentence of 19 words, strictly following all instructions and constraints."
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Perfect one-sentence summary under 30 words capturing the blocked decision on unknown ticket volume."
    }
   ],
   "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 is on the 16th, as confirmed in the contract. The usage report must be submitted before then; otherwise, the account will automatically renew at last year’s tier, which is the more expensive option.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 2851,
   "cost": 0.0001532,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, meets constraints, under word limit, no invented names, states date, evidence, and consequence clearly."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly extracts the required information, correctly identifies the date, its source, and the consequences, without inventing details. It is clear, concise, and well under the word limit."
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Meets all requirements exactly: correct date and evidence, consequence stated, no invented names, 34 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: the CEO mentioned a speculative possibility of a Manchester office, but made no decision, commitment, or action.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 2793,
   "cost": 0.0001162,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Correctly identifies no actionable item, concise, under 50 words, meets judgement test."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Perfectly follows instructions, correctly identifying the statement as speculative and explaining in a single line why no note is needed. Meets the word count constraint."
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Correctly judges no note needed as speculative only; under 50 words; clear and exact."
    }
   ],
   "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 workload and priorities**\n\nI want to acknowledge the concern you raised about your workload. Reporting has grown from around two days a month to nearly two weeks, and this has displaced the customer interviews you were hired to conduct. That is not a sustainable or acceptable shift in your role.\n\nI will take the monthly board pack back from you, so it is no longer part of your recurring workload.\n\nPlease send me a list of the recurring reports you are currently producing, including their frequency and approximate time required, by Friday. I will use this to review what else should be removed, streamlined, or reassigned.\n\nThe customer interviews will restart in September and will return to your priorities. We will confirm the schedule and any supporting arrangements before then.\n\nYou should raise workload concerns earlier rather than carrying them alone, even when the wider team is busy. We will review progress after the reporting changes are made.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 4218,
   "cost": 0.000345,
   "task_score": 9,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Meets constraints: no exclamation marks, under 200 words, confirms ownership, deliverable/deadline, September change, avoids 'flagging' and minimizing language. Slightly could be more concise but strong overall."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions and constraints. It accurately reflects the transcript, includes all required elements, avoids the forbidden phrases/tones, uses no exclamation marks, and is well under the 200-word limit."
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurately captures all required confirmations without minimising or thanking; no !; under 200 words; clear and professional with only minor phrasing extras."
    }
   ],
   "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": "{\"deposit_clears\":\"2026-05-22\",\"presentation\":\"2026-05-21\",\"filing_due\":\"2026-05-29\",\"ana_returns\":\"2026-06-01\"}",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 3570,
   "cost": 0.0002222,
   "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, no extra text."
    },
    {
     "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 rules, and outputs exactly the requested JSON format without any markdown or prose."
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "All four dates correctly resolved from 2026-05-12 per rules; exact JSON format and keys followed."
    }
   ],
   "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. In 40 minutes, Marcus spoke about 24m24s; Jo 7m36s, Priya 4m24s, Ben 2m48s, Aisha 48s, and Sam 0. The discussion therefore sampled one perspective far more than the group’s operational knowledge.\n\n2. Every recorded decision was proposed by Marcus. The meeting tested and refined one person’s options, but did not establish whether alternatives, objections, or independent diagnoses existed.\n\n3. Aisha is the only attendee who has actually run the process being redesigned, yet contributed less than a minute. The meeting consequently failed to learn where the process breaks in practice, what workarounds exist, and which changes may be infeasible. Next time, obtain Aisha’s process account before options are proposed, and explicitly surface independent alternatives and risks.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 8566,
   "cost": 0.0007718,
   "task_score": 9,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate math, specific, avoids banned terms/phrasing, under word limit (~130). Slightly recommends a soft process fix but not generic icebreaker/round robin. Clear and useful."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Flawless response. It strictly follows all constraints, translates the percentages into impactful exact times, avoids banned words, and provides highly actionable, non-judgmental feedback focused on what the meeting failed to learn."
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate times from %, specific to Aisha and failures to learn; follows all constraints; clear, concise, highly 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": "- You owe: confirm the revised rebrand timeline with stakeholders; delivery is slipping by two weeks.\n- Assess whether the Q3 headcount decision—two roles approved and one deferred—affects marketing capacity or launch support.\n- Once the date is confirmed, update the marketing plan and communicate any downstream changes.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 7622,
   "cost": 0.000621,
   "task_score": 6,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 6,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Leads with owed action, drops parking/hosting/outage appropriately, 3 bullets, under word limit. But bullet 2 is somewhat weak/speculative rather than clearly relevant, slightly redundant with bullet 3."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 5,
     "violates": true,
     "reasoning": "The response failed to include a name for the person, violating the 'one named person' constraint. It successfully used exactly 3 bullets, stayed under 120 words, and filtered the meeting items appropriately."
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Exact 3 bullets under 120 words; leads with marketing lead's rebrand obligation; retains relevant headcount; omits irrelevant items cleanly."
    }
   ],
   "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": "- The SOW must be signed before the discovery phase begins.  \n- The client requests Net 30 payment terms, while the standard terms are Net 15.  \n- ARR is $420,000.  \n- The audit should be discussed with Grant Thornton, not Deloitte.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 8259,
   "cost": 0.000723,
   "task_score": 5,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 5,
     "violates": true,
     "reasoning": "Correctly handles Grant Thornton correction and other fixes, but fails to flag the genuine ambiguity (which payment term applies), just restates facts without flagging."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 5,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response cleans the text well and stays under the word count, but fails to flag any real ambiguity as explicitly requested in the prompt, missing a key instruction."
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Correctly fixes mishearings (SOW, discovery, nets, ARR) and treats the spoken Deloitte-to-Grant Thornton correction properly. Concise bullets under limit; minor polish only."
    }
   ],
   "machine_violation": false,
   "machine_reasons": []
  }
 ]
}