{ "entity": "gpt-5-6-terra", "entity_type": "model", "category": "Meetings & notes", "suite": "suite-2026-08-tasks7/meetings", "model": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "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": 88, "caps": 1, "cost_usd": 0.1832, "started_at": "2026-08-28T13:53:11.891Z", "finished_at": "2026-08-28T13:53:40.651Z", "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 — Export Feature**\n\n- **Open question:** Whether to ship the export feature on Thursday or hold it due to the unresolved CSV encoding issue.\n- **Issue:** CSV export may mangle the pound sign (£). It is currently known to affect one customer, but it is unclear whether the problem is customer-specific or locale-based.\n- **Risk:** If locale-based, the issue could affect UK users more broadly.\n- **Positions discussed:**\n - Dan prefers not to ship while the encoding issue remains unresolved.\n - Sam suggested shipping Thursday and issuing a hotfix if needed.\n- **Follow-up:** Dan will investigate whether the issue is limited to one customer or affects a locale, and assess the scope of impact.\n- **Next step:** Revisit the shipping question on Wednesday after Dan’s investigation.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 3144, "cost": 0.00249, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately captures open question, both positions, follow-up, and defers decision to Wednesday without implying resolution. Concise, under 180 words, clear format." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the open question, the two positions, Dan's action item, and the deferred decision without implying a final choice was made. It is well under the 180-word limit and highly readable." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately captures open question, positions, Dan's investigation, and deferral to Wednesday with 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": 1307, "cost": 0.000762, "task_score": 5, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correct ownership assignments; used all-caps names as in speaker labels rather than natural-case 'Maya'/'Tom', a minor spelling nuance." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing only the requested JSON with the correct keys and accurately identifying the final owners of each task 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; flawless compliance and accuracy." } ], "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%, up from 2.8% in the previous quarter. \nJuly churn was 3.1% for the month. \nThe initial reference to 4.2% as a July figure was corrected during the discussion.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 1433, "cost": 0.000952, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, uses corrected figures, distinguishes monthly/quarterly, notes retraction, under 70 words. Minor stylistic redundancy but meets all constraints well." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing a clear, concise three-line summary under 70 words with accurate figures and distinctions between monthly and quarterly data." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Perfect three-line summary under 70 words with corrected figures, clear monthly/quarterly labels, and no presentation of retracted data as fact." } ], "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": "**Support Outsourcing Proposal**\n\nRaj stated that transferring support to an outsourcer would risk the service quality customers most value. Kate stated that the current support model costs approximately £11,000 per month, which the organisation cannot afford. Raj stated that increased customer churn could cost more than the proposed saving. Kate stated that this had not been evidenced; Raj responded that the affordability position had likewise not been evidenced.\n\nThe Chair ruled that the matter would be presented to the September Board with financial, service-quality and churn data supporting both positions.\n\nNo agreement was reached. The disagreement remains unresolved pending Board consideration.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 2751, "cost": 0.001834, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, balanced, named attribution, chair's ruling recorded, unresolved noted, avoids banned words, under 150 words, formal minutes format." }, { "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 wor" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Perfectly captures equal positions with attribution, chair ruling, unresolved status; under 150 words; no banned terms or smoothing." } ], "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 remains undecided pending support-ticket volume data, which nobody had; engineering estimates six weeks to rebuild versus roughly two weeks to patch.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 1492, "cost": 0.000702, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, single sentence, 25 words (under 30), captures blocked decision and missing ticket data, though slightly less crisp than ideal." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response is exactly one sentence, well under the 30-word limit, and perfectly captures the core issue and current status for a busy director." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "One sentence under 30 words; accurately captures blocked decision on missing ticket data plus key estimates. Minor polish possible but strong overall." } ], "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 evidenced in the contract. The usage report must be completed before then; otherwise, the agreement will auto-renew on last year’s tier, which is the expensive tier.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 1356, "cost": 0.000932, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, concise (30 words), meets all constraints, no invented names. Slightly terse but clear and correct." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Flawless response. It accurately extracts the correct date, evidence, and consequence without inventing details, and remains well under the 80-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/roles, 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 note required on the Manchester comment: it was speculative and conditional, not a decision or action. Discussion moved to audit status.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 1539, "cost": 0.000574, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly identifies no note needed, explains judgement clearly, concise, under 50 words, transitions to audit topic appropriately." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows the instructions, correctly identifying the Manchester comment as speculative and conditional, and stays well under the 50-word limit." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly judges speculative comment needs no note as plan/decision/action; 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 follow up on our conversation today and acknowledge the position you have been in. The reporting work has expanded from around two days each month to nearly two weeks, and it has displaced the customer interviews that are central to the role you were hired to do. You should not have had to carry that without raising it because the wider team is busy.\n\nI will take the monthly board pack back under my responsibility, effective immediately. I will also review how the remaining reporting is allocated and whether it is still necessary.\n\nPlease send me a list of the recurring reports you currently produce by Friday, including frequency, approximate time required, audience, and any deadlines. This will give us a clear basis for making changes rather than treating the workload as fixed.\n\nFrom September, customer interviews will restart as a defined priority in your workload. We will protect time for them and ensure reporting does not again crowd out that work.\n\nI will check in with you once I have reviewed the report list and confirmed the revised arrangements.\n\nBest, \n[Manager Name]", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 4700, "cost": 0.003018, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets constraints, no exclamation marks, under 200 words, avoids minimizing or thanking for 'flagging'. Clear, professional, confirms all required points; minor stiffness but strong overall." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The email perfectly captures all required details, avoids the forbidden phrases and minimizing tone, uses zero exclamation marks, and is well under the 200-word limit. It is highly professional and actionable." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately captures all required confirmations without minimising or thanking for flagging; no exclamations; under 200 words; clear, professional and complete." } ], "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": 2922, "cost": 0.001754, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All dates correctly computed and format matches exactly requested JSON keys/structure." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, calculates all dates accurately based on the provided rules, 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": "All four dates correctly resolved per rules; exact JSON format and keys 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": "1. Marcus spoke for about 24 of the 40 minutes and proposed every recorded decision. That means the group mostly tested one person’s framing; build in time next meeting for alternatives before decisions are formed.\n\n2. Aisha spoke for under a minute, despite being the only person who has actually run the process being redesigned. The meeting therefore did not meaningfully access its most direct operational evidence. Ask her to walk the group through the current process, failure points, and trade-offs early—before solution discussion.\n\n3. Sam contributed no speaking time, and Ben and Priya together had only about seven minutes. Treat the decisions as provisional: the meeting has not yet surfaced implementation risks, dissent, or options from most of the room.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 3535, "cost": 0.002114, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Specific, uses numbers correctly, avoids banned words, addresses Aisha's expertise, under 130 words. Minor: slightly less concise than ideal, but strong overall." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, including the negative constraints and word count. It provides highly specific, actionable observations focused on what the meeting failed to learn, making it extremely useful for the chair." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Exact match to all constraints: three specific observations, numbers and Aisha used correctly, no banned terms/phrases, under 130 words, focuses on learning gaps." } ], "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": "- **Rebrand timeline:** The launch is slipping by two weeks. Please confirm the updated marketing plan, key dates, and any downstream comms impact.\n\n- **Q3 headcount:** Two roles were approved and one was deferred. Please review whether the deferred role affects marketing priorities or delivery plans and flag any concerns.\n\n- **Hosting migration:** Completed with no follow-up needed from marketing.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 1845, "cost": 0.001278, "task_score": 7, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Leads with marketing action, cuts parking/post-mortem, but includes hosting migration (irrelevant, no action) instead of more useful context; word count fine, 3 bullets satisfied." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Follows constraints and leads with the required action. However, it includes the hosting migration which does not affect marketing and should have been cut per the instructions." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 7, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Leads with owed rebrand action and uses exactly 3 bullets under 120 words. Includes irrelevant hosting item against cut guidance; Q3 stretch is minor." } ], "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": "- Obtain the SOW signature before beginning the discovery phase. \n- The client is requesting Net 30 payment terms; our standard terms are Net 15. \n- ARR is $420,000. \n- Discuss the audit with Grant Thornton, not Deloitte.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 5683, "cost": 0.003786, "task_score": 6, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly fixes transcription errors and handles the self-correction, but fails to explicitly flag it as a spoken correction versus mishearing, per instructions. Concise, accurate, useful otherwise." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 5, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response fails to flag the real ambiguity in the ARR figure ('four hundred and twenty K, sorry, four twenty thousand' could mean 420k or 4,020,000), which was a specific instruction." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Flawless cleanup of all mishearings; correctly treats only the Deloitte/Grant Thornton as live speaker correction; under 120 words; clear and useful." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] } ] }