{
 "entity": "grok-4-5",
 "entity_type": "model",
 "category": "Meetings & notes",
 "suite": "suite-2026-08-tasks7/meetings",
 "model": "x-ai/grok-4.5",
 "judges": [
  "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
  "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
  "openai/gpt-5.6-terra"
 ],
 "judge_protocol": "judge-2026-08b",
 "anchors": "solo-2026-08-a",
 "kind": "solo",
 "decider": false,
 "note": null,
 "score": 94,
 "caps": 0,
 "cost_usd": 0.183,
 "started_at": "2026-08-28T13:56:25.583Z",
 "finished_at": "2026-08-28T13:57:27.623Z",
 "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 – product standup (6 min)**\n\n**Open question:** Ship the export feature Thursday, or hold?\n\n**Positions:**\n- Dan: Prefer hold — CSV encoding issue still open (works, but mangles the pound sign). Impact unclear: one customer, or possibly a locale (which could affect everyone in the UK).\n- Sam: Could ship Thursday and hotfix if needed.\n- Priya: Noted both views; no preference stated.\n\n**Next step:** Dan to investigate the encoding issue (customer-specific vs locale) and report back.\n\n**Decision status:** No ship/hold decision made. Discussion deferred to Wednesday once Dan has looked.\n\n(Word count: 98)",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 4530,
   "cost": 0.0019964,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate, captures both positions, action item, explicitly defers decision, concise under 180 words, clear formatting."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the open question, positions, next steps, and deferred decision without implying a final decision was made. It is concise, clear, and well under the 180-word limit."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurately records the unresolved shipping question, Dan’s and Sam’s positions, Dan’s investigation scope, and deferral to Wednesday. It clearly avoids implying any ship-or-hold decision and stays well under 180 words."
    }
   ],
   "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": 6107,
   "cost": 0.0027044,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "All four values correct, final ownership properly resolved, exact JSON format with required keys only."
    },
    {
     "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 or prose. The extracted task owners are completely accurate based on the transcript."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "All four required keys are present with correct final owners. Maya owns pricing and chasing Ash; Tom owns the Thursday deck; support has no assigned owner. Valid JSON and no extra content."
    }
   ],
   "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": "Churn was 4.2% for the quarter.  \nThis was up from 2.8% the prior quarter.  \nJuly’s monthly churn was 3.1%.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 7607,
   "cost": 0.0031624,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 6,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate, clear, correct figures and labels, avoids retracted reading, under word limit. Slightly terse and could better flag correction context, but meets requirements well."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, accurately captures the corrected figures, clearly distinguishes monthly from quarterly data, and meets the length and line constraints."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurately states the corrected quarterly and monthly churn figures, notes the quarter-on-quarter increase, excludes the retracted reading, uses exactly three lines, and stays well 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": "**Minutes of Meeting**\n\n**Item: Outsourcing of Support Services**\n\nRaj stated that moving support to the outsourcer would cost the company the quality customers rate it for. Kate stated that the current arrangement costs eleven thousand pounds monthly, which the company does not have. Raj replied that churn would cost more. Kate replied that Raj did not know that; Raj replied that Kate did not know it either.\n\nThe disagreement remains unresolved.\n\nThe Chair ruled that the matter would be taken to the September board meeting with numbers on both positions.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 4718,
   "cost": 0.0019984,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate, attributed equally, records chair's ruling and unresolved status, avoids banned words, under 150 words, clear and concise."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the exchange in a formal minutes format, attributes both positions equally, notes the unresolved disagreement and the chair's ruling, avoids all forbidden words, and is well under the 150-word limit."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurately records Raj’s and Kate’s opposing positions with named attribution and equal treatment, states the disagreement is unresolved, and records the Chair’s ruling. It is formal, concise, under 150 words, and avoids all prohibited term"
    }
   ],
   "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": "**Decision on rebuild vs. patch of onboarding is blocked pending support-ticket volume numbers nobody in the room had.**",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 6828,
   "cost": 0.0032664,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, within 30 words, captures blocked decision and missing data point clearly."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing a clear, concise, and accurate one-sentence summary under 30 words that captures the exact state of play."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurately captures the key outcome: no decision was made because support-ticket volume was unknown. It is one clear sentence, well under 30 words, and suitable for a director skimming notes."
    }
   ],
   "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 (evidenced in the contract). Usage report needed before then, or it auto-renews on last year’s expensive tier.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 3988,
   "cost": 0.0021424,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, meets all constraints: correct date, evidence source, consequence stated, no invented names, well under 80 words."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly extracts the required information, accurately reflecting the corrected date, its source, and the consequences, while remaining well under the word limit and avoiding invented details."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurately states the corrected renewal date, identifies the contract as evidence, and clearly explains that missing the usage report triggers auto-renewal on last year’s expensive tier. Concise, clean, and within 80 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 notes entry: CEO’s Manchester comment is speculation (“could see”, “maybe”, “if”), not a plan, decision or action. Pivots to asking Sarah for audit status.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 5495,
   "cost": 0.0021184,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Correctly judges no actionable item, concise, under 50 words, meets task's judgement test."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows the instructions, correctly identifying the Manchester comment as speculation rather than a decision, and stays well under the 50-word limit."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurately identifies the Manchester remark as conditional speculation, not a plan, decision, or action. It also notes the pivot to the audit. Concise, clear, and within the 50-word limit."
    }
   ],
   "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 to our discussion on workload\n\nHi,\n\nI am writing to confirm the points from our one-to-one. You described being underwater because the reporting work has expanded from two days a month to nearly two weeks, which has forced you to stop the customer interviews you were hired to do; you held off raising it because everyone is busy.\n\nI am taking the monthly board pack back immediately. Send me the full list of recurring reports by Friday. Customer interviews restart in September.\n\n[Manager]",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 10402,
   "cost": 0.0038484,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 6,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Meets constraints (no exclamation, no 'flagging' thanks, under 200 words), covers required points, but lacks acknowledgment weight/tone reassurance a strong response might add; brief and slightly flat."
    },
    {
     "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 word limit."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurately confirms the workload impact, the manager taking back the monthly board pack immediately, the report’s required recurring-report list by Friday, and customer interviews restarting in September. It is concise, professional, under "
    }
   ],
   "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": 9133,
   "cost": 0.0042164,
   "task_score": 10,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "All dates correctly computed per given rules; JSON format matches exactly required keys and structure."
    },
    {
     "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 meeting date, and outputs only the requested JSON without code fences or prose."
    },
    {
     "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 keys with valid YYYY-MM-DD strings and no extra content."
    }
   ],
   "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. Aisha (sole operator of the current process) spoke for 2% of 40 minutes—under 60 seconds—so the redesign incorporated virtually none of her direct experience.  \n2. Every recorded decision came from Marcus; with Sam at 0% and Ben at 7%, the outputs reflect one framing and omit checks against actual run-state knowledge only Aisha holds.  \n3. 91% of airtime sat with Marcus/Jo/Priya; the meeting therefore never surfaced constraints or failure modes known exclusively to the person who has run the process.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 10628,
   "cost": 0.0033704,
   "task_score": 8,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 8,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Specific, correct math, avoids banned terms/recommendations, concise, useful; slightly redundant across points but within word limit and meets constraints."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, including negative constraints. The math is accurate, the focus remains strictly on lost insights rather than interpersonal dynamics, and it is well under the word limit."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 7,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurate calculations and three specific observations. However, it overstates what can be inferred: Aisha’s 48 seconds could have surfaced some constraints, and her knowledge is not necessarily exclusively hers. Observations also overlap so"
    }
   ],
   "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": "- Confirm the rebrand timeline (slipped two weeks) and reply with your sign-off.\n- Once confirmed, share the updated dates with the broader team.\n- No further marketing actions or inputs required from the meeting.",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 17288,
   "cost": 0.0074524,
   "task_score": 6,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 6,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Correctly leads with marketing's action, cuts irrelevant items, meets bullet/word limits, but omits headcount context that could affect marketing hiring; overall solid and concise."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 6,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Follows constraints perfectly, but invents extra actions (sharing dates, sign-off) to fill the three bullets rather than finding a more natural way to format the genuine marketing impact."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 5,
     "violates": true,
     "reasoning": "It prioritizes the marketing lead’s rebrand actions and omits irrelevant items, with exactly three bullets under 120 words. However, it does not address a named person, adds an unsupported sign-off requirement, and the final bullet is unnec"
    }
   ],
   "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": "We need to get the SOW signed before we can start the discovery phase. The client wants Net 30 but our standard is Net 15. ARR is at 420,000. Talk to Grant Thornton about the audit (speaker corrected from Deloitte).",
   "decider": false,
   "latency_ms": 35996,
   "cost": 0.0116344,
   "task_score": 9,
   "judges": [
    {
     "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5",
     "score": 9,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Correctly fixes SOW/discovery, ARR figures, identifies Grant Thornton correction as spoken correction, keeps Net30/15 as-is (real ambiguity implied but not flagged explicitly). Concise, under word limit."
    },
    {
     "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview",
     "score": 7,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Fixes transcription errors and correctly identifies the speaker's out-loud correction. However, it fails to flag any real ambiguity as requested (e.g., the ARR figure 'four twenty thousand' could be 420,000 or 4,020,000)."
    },
    {
     "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra",
     "score": 10,
     "violates": false,
     "reasoning": "Accurately fixes obvious transcription errors, preserves the stated terms and amounts, and explicitly identifies the speaker’s Deloitte-to-Grant Thornton correction. It is concise, clear, useful, and well under 120 words."
    }
   ],
   "machine_violation": false,
   "machine_reasons": []
  }
 ]
}