{
 "entity": "gpt-5-6-sol",
 "entity_type": "model",
 "category": "Meetings & notes",
 "suite": "suite-2026-08-tasks7/meetings",
 "model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
 "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": 93,
 "caps": 1,
 "cost_usd": 0.1784,
 "started_at": "2026-08-28T13:52:43.574Z",
 "finished_at": "2026-08-28T13:53:11.888Z",
 "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:** Whether to ship the export feature on Thursday or hold it.\n\n**Positions discussed:**\n- **Dan:** Prefers to hold because CSV encoding may mangle the pound sign (£).\n- **Sam:** Suggested shipping Thursday and issuing a hotfix if needed.\n- **Priya:** Noted that if the issue is locale-wide, it could affect all UK users.\n\n**Investigation:** Dan will determine whether the encoding issue is limited to one customer or affects the broader UK locale.\n\n**Next step:** The shipping decision is deferred until Wednesday, when the team will revisit it based on Dan’s findings.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 2444,
   "cost": 0.00179,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurately captures positions, open question, and defers decision to Wednesday without implying a resolution. Concise, clear, under 180 words."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the open question, positions, investigation, and deferred decision without implying a final choice was made. It is well-structured, clear, and well under the 180-word limit."
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Captures open question, positions, Dan's check, deferral to Wednesday; no 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": "{\"pricing_page\":\"MAYA\",\"tell_support\":null,\"thursday_deck\":\"TOM\",\"chase_ash\":\"MAYA\"}",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 1837,
   "cost": 0.000698,
   "task_score": 5,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Correct ownership assignments; names capitalized as speaker labels appear, though original spec might expect natural-case names."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing only the requested JSON without code fences, and accurately identifies the final task owners based on the transcript."
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Exact match to transcript ownerships and required JSON format/keys/values; flawless."
    }
   ],
   "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 was 4.2%.  \nJuly monthly churn was 3.1%.  \nQuarterly churn increased from 2.8% in the previous quarter.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 2669,
   "cost": 0.001156,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate, distinguishes monthly/quarterly, avoids retracted figure, concise, clear. Slight lack of explicit 'up' framing but factually fine and under word limit."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing a clear, accurate, three-line summary under the word limit, with correct figures and clear distinctions between monthly and quarterly data."
    },
    {
     "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": "**Outsourcing of Customer Support**\n\nRaj opposed moving customer support to the outsourcer, stating that it risked undermining the service customers valued and that resulting customer churn could cost more.\n\nKate supported the move on financial grounds, stating that the current arrangement cost 11,000 per month and that funds were unavailable to sustain it. She disputed that the cost of churn would be greater, noting that this had not been established.\n\nRaj responded that the financial case for outsourcing was likewise unproven.\n\nThe Chair ruled that the matter would be referred to the September Board, supported by figures addressing both positions. No agreement was reached, and the disagreement remains unresolved.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 6531,
   "cost": 0.003816,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate, balanced, named attribution, records chair ruling and unresolved status, avoids banned words, under 150 words, no editorializing."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the exchange in a formal minutes style, accurately attributing both positions without editorializing. It explicitly notes the unresolved disagreement and the Chair's ruling, while strictly adhering to the neg"
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Meets all constraints exactly: equal named positions, chair ruling, unresolved noted, no banned words or consensus, under 150 words, accurate and clear."
    }
   ],
   "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": "Onboarding rebuild-versus-patch decision is blocked pending support-ticket volume data; estimates are six weeks for rebuilding and about two weeks for patching.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 3169,
   "cost": 0.001362,
   "task_score": 9,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate, single sentence, under 30 words, captures the blocked decision and estimates; slightly less emphasis on 'nobody knew ticket numbers' but conveys blockage clearly."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the required state of play in a single, concise sentence of 21 words, making it highly useful for a busy director."
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate one-sentence summary under 30 words that clearly states the decision is blocked on missing ticket data, with key estimates."
    }
   ],
   "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 16th, as stated in the contract. The usage report must be submitted before then; otherwise, the contract will auto-renew at last year’s more expensive tier.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 1531,
   "cost": 0.000796,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, meets constraints, avoids inventing names; slightly could clarify 'stated in the contract' phrasing but essentially correct and under word limit."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Flawless response. It accurately extracts the correct date, its source, and the consequence of missing the deadline, all while remaining perfectly concise and well under the 80-word limit without inventing any details."
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Meets all stated requirements exactly: correct date and evidence, consequence, no invented names, under 80 words, clear and accurate."
    }
   ],
   "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 entry: the CEO’s comment was speculative, with no decision or action agreed; discussion moved on to the audit.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 1404,
   "cost": 0.000494,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Correctly avoids recording speculative comment as decision/action, concise, under 50 words, meets judgement test appropriately."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows the instructions, correctly identifying the comment as speculative and explaining why no note is needed in a single line. It is well under the 50-word limit."
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Correctly identifies no notes entry needed as comment is 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\nHi [Name],\n\nI want to confirm the actions from our one-to-one.\n\nThe reporting workload has grown from around two days a month to nearly two weeks, and it has displaced the customer interviews you were hired to do. You also said you have been carrying this without raising it because everyone is busy. That situation is not sustainable.\n\nEffective immediately, I am taking ownership of the monthly board pack. Please send me a list of all other recurring reports you currently produce by Friday, including their frequency and approximate time commitment. I will review the list with you so we can decide what should stop, move, or be reassigned.\n\nFrom September, customer interviews will restart as a core part of your role. We will protect time for them and adjust the remaining reporting work accordingly, rather than adding interviews back on top of the current workload.\n\nWe will check progress at our next one-to-one.\n\nBest,  \n[Manager]",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 4342,
   "cost": 0.00297,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Meets constraints: no exclamation marks, under 200 words, confirms takeover, deadline, September change, avoids minimizing or thanking for 'flagging'. Clear, professional, minor stiffness but strong overall."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the required details, adheres strictly to all constraints (no exclamation marks, under 200 words, no minimising/thanking for flagging), and is highly professional and clear."
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurately captures all points without minimising or thanking; meets every constraint including no exclamations and under 200 words; clear, useful, concise."
    }
   ],
   "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": 3023,
   "cost": 0.001606,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "All dates correctly computed per rules; format matches exactly with required four keys, no extra text."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, provides exactly the requested JSON format with no code fences or prose, and accurately calculates all dates based on the provided rules."
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "All four dates correctly resolved from meeting of 2026-05-12 per exact rules; perfect JSON format with 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. Marcus spoke for 24.4 of 40 minutes; Marcus and Jo together used 80% of the airtime. The meeting therefore gathered very little information from the other four attendees—especially none from Sam.\n\n2. All recorded decisions originated with Marcus. That means the group evaluated only one person’s proposed solutions, rather than comparing alternatives or surfacing assumptions before committing.\n\n3. Aisha, the only person who has actually run the process being redesigned, spoke for about 48 seconds. The meeting likely missed operational realities, exceptions, and workarounds. Next time, ask Aisha to map the current process and failure points before proposals are discussed, then test each proposed decision against her experience.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 7112,
   "cost": 0.00425,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 7,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Specific, numerate, avoids banned terms/generic advice, under word limit. Minor: point 3 includes a mild generic-ish suggestion but not icebreaker/round robin, acceptable."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, including negative constraints. It accurately uses the provided numbers, focuses on missed learning rather than bad behavior, and stays well under the word limit. Highly useful and clear."
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Precise numbers, Aisha expertise highlighted, three focused observations on missed learning, under 130 words, no banned terms or generics."
    }
   ],
   "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": "- Priya: please confirm the revised rebrand timeline, now expected to slip by two weeks.\n- Once confirmed, update marketing milestones and flag any impact on launch plans or external communications.\n- Q3 headcount: two roles were approved and one deferred; adjust hiring and workload plans accordingly.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 5975,
   "cost": 0.003494,
   "task_score": 9,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 6,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Leads with marketing action correctly, cuts parking/hosting, but includes 3 bullets not 5 - good. Headcount relevance to marketing lead is unclear/possibly not marketing's roles, slight overreach. Concise, under word limit."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, leading with the required action, filtering out irrelevant meeting items, using exactly three bullet points, and staying well under the word limit. It is clear and highly useful."
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Leads with marketing lead's action on rebrand, retains relevant headcount impact, drops irrelevant items. 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": "- The SOW must be signed before the discovery phase begins.\n- The client wants Net 30 payment terms; the standard is Net 15.\n- ARR is 420,000; currency was not specified.\n- The speaker corrected the audit firm from Deloitte to Grant Thornton. Contact Grant Thornton about the audit.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 6567,
   "cost": 0.003848,
   "task_score": 9,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Correctly fixes transcription errors, flags currency ambiguity, correctly identifies self-correction. Concise, under word limit, clear. Minor: 'discovery phase' fine, could flag net30/15 discrepancy as real ambiguity but it's clearly the tw"
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, silently fixing transcription errors, flagging the missing currency as a real ambiguity, and correctly identifying the Deloitte/Grant Thornton switch as a genuine out-loud correction. Word co"
    },
    {
     "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate fixes of mishearings; correctly flags genuine spoken correction and real ambiguity (currency); concise bullet summary under limit."
    }
   ],
   "machine_violation": false,
   "machine_reasons": []
  }
 ]
}