{ "entity": "qwen3-7-max", "entity_type": "model", "category": "Meetings & notes", "suite": "suite-2026-08-tasks7/meetings", "model": "qwen/qwen3.7-max", "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": 89, "caps": 0, "cost_usd": 0.288, "started_at": "2026-08-28T14:01:47.373Z", "finished_at": "2026-08-28T14:04:06.032Z", "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:** Should the export feature ship on Thursday or be held?\n\n**Positions Discussed:**\n* **Hold:** Dan advises holding the release due to an open CSV encoding bug that mangles the pound sign. He prefers fixing it pre-launch rather than relying on a post-launch hotfix.\n* **Ship:** Sam suggests shipping on Thursday as planned and deploying a hotfix later if needed.\n\n**Action Item:**\n* Dan will investigate the bug's scope to determine if the pound sign issue is isolated to one specific customer or if it is a locale issue affecting all UK users. \n\n**Next Steps:**\n* No decision was made regarding the Thursday release. The final ship-or-hold decision remains open and is deferred to Wednesday, pending the results of Dan’s investigation.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 39330, "cost": 0.0119652, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, captures both positions, action item, defers decision clearly, under 180 words, well-structured." }, { "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 clear, concise, and well under the 180-word limit." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately records the open question, both positions, Dan’s investigation, and deferral to Wednesday without implying a decision. Minor unsupported wording: Sam did not explicitly say Thursday was “as planned.”" } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt2", "name": "Actions, owners, and the one with neither", "prompt": "Transcript extract. MAYA: 'I'll get the pricing page updated before the campaign goes out.' TOM: 'And someone needs to tell support about the new tiers.' MAYA: 'Yeah.' TOM: 'I can do the deck for Thursday.' MAYA: 'Perfect. Oh and the legal review — Ash said he'd look but that was three weeks ago.' TOM: 'I'll chase Ash.' MAYA: 'Actually leave it, I'll chase him, I owe him an email anyway.' Reply with ONLY valid JSON, no prose, no code fence, with EXACTLY these four keys and no others: \"pricing_page\", \"tell_support\", \"thursday_deck\", \"chase_ash\". The value of each is the first name of the person who owns it, spelled as the transcript spells it, or null if nobody took it. Where ownership changed during the conversation, give the FINAL owner.", "output": "{\n \"pricing_page\": \"Maya\",\n \"tell_support\": null,\n \"thursday_deck\": \"Tom\",\n \"chase_ash\": \"Maya\"\n}", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 20579, "cost": 0.006048975, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly identifies owners, final ownership for chase_ash, null for unassigned support task, exact JSON format with required keys." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, including the strict JSON formatting with no code fences, and accurately identifies the final owners of all tasks." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All four required keys are present with correct final ownership: Maya, null, Tom, and Maya. Output is valid JSON and contains no extra keys or prose." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt3", "name": "The number said twice", "prompt": "Transcript extract, board update. FINANCE LEAD: 'Churn was four point two percent in July… sorry, four point two for the quarter, July on its own was three point one.' CHAIR: 'And that's up?' FINANCE LEAD: 'Up from two point eight the quarter before.' CHAIR: 'Right.' Write the three-line summary of the churn position for people who were not in the room. It must carry the corrected figures, must make clear which number is monthly and which is quarterly, and must not present the retracted reading as fact. Under 70 words.", "output": "Quarterly churn increased to 4.2% for the latest quarter, up from 2.8% the prior quarter.\nMonthly churn for July was 3.1%, correcting the initial misstatement that applied the quarterly rate to July.\nThese corrected figures confirm a clear upward trend in overall customer churn.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 40283, "cost": 0.01202715, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, clear, distinguishes monthly/quarterly, avoids stating retracted figure as fact, under 70 words (44). Slightly verbose phrasing but solid." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, accurately summarizing the churn figures in exactly three lines and under 70 words. It clearly distinguishes monthly from quarterly figures and avoids presenting the retracted number as fact." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately distinguishes 4.2% quarterly churn, 3.1% July monthly churn, and the prior-quarter 2.8% figure. It clearly identifies the correction and uses three lines under 70 words. “Clear upward trend in overall churn” is slightly broader t" } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt4", "name": "Minutes for a meeting with a disagreement in it", "prompt": "Two people disagreed, publicly, and were not reconciled. RAJ: 'Moving support to the outsourcer will cost us the thing customers actually rate us for.' KATE: 'It costs us eleven grand a month we do not have.' RAJ: 'And churn costs more.' KATE: 'You don't know that.' RAJ: 'Neither do you.' CHAIR: 'We'll take it to the September board with numbers on both.' Write formal minutes of this item. Record both positions with equal weight and named attribution, record the chair's ruling, and record that the disagreement is unresolved. Do not smooth it into consensus, do not editorialise about who is right, and do not use the words 'productive', 'robust' or 'healthy' to describe the exchange. Under 150 words.", "output": "**Item: Support Outsourcing Proposal**\n\nThe committee discussed outsourcing customer support. The disagreement remains unresolved. \n\nRaj opposed the move, arguing it would compromise the primary service quality by which the company is rated. He asserted that subsequent customer churn would cost more than the savings. \n\nKate supported outsourcing, stating the current function costs $11,000 monthly, which is unaffordable. She challenged Raj’s churn estimates as unproven. Raj replied that Kate likewise lacked data. \n\nThe Chair ruled that the item is deferred to the September board meeting. The Chair directed both parties to present quantified financial projections for their respective positions.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 49889, "cost": 0.015155625, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, balanced, meets format and word limit, avoids banned words, records unresolved disagreement and chair's ruling clearly; minor stylistic smoothing but no consensus 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 reflecting both positions, the chair's ruling, and the unresolved nature of the conflict. It strictly adheres to all constraints, including word count and ba" }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately records both named positions, the unresolved disagreement, and the Chair’s direction for September with numbers from both sides. Formal and concise. Minor wording inference: “deferred” is not explicitly stated, though it reasonab" } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt5", "name": "Fourteen minutes, one sentence", "prompt": "A fourteen-minute agenda item, summarised: the team debated whether to rebuild the onboarding flow or patch it; engineering estimated six weeks for a rebuild and 'about a fortnight, probably' for patching; design argued the patch preserves the confusing three-step signup that generates most support tickets; the head of product asked what the support-ticket volume actually is and nobody in the room knew; the item ended with someone agreeing to pull the ticket numbers before any decision. Write ONE sentence, maximum 30 words, that a director skimming the notes would read instead of the fourteen minutes. It must land the actual state of play — that the decision is blocked on a number nobody had.", "output": "The decision to rebuild or patch onboarding is blocked on a crucial number nobody had: the actual support ticket volume.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 39865, "cost": 0.012356075, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, single sentence under 30 words, captures blocked decision on missing ticket number. Minor lack of vividness but solid." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, including the one-sentence and 30-word limits. It accurately and concisely captures the exact state of play for a busy director." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately captures the unresolved rebuild-versus-patch decision and clearly states it is blocked by the unknown support-ticket volume. It is one concise sentence under 30 words." } ], "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 submitted before then. If missed, the service will auto-renew on last year's tier, which is the more expensive option.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 20028, "cost": 0.00664635, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, meets constraints, no invented names, under 80 words; slightly loses conversational nuance but factually correct and clear." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Flawless response. It accurately captures the corrected date, the evidence, and the consequences without inventing details, all while remaining well under the 80-word limit." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately states the corrected renewal date, identifies the contract as evidence, and explains that missing the usage report causes auto-renewal on last year's more expensive tier. It is concise, clear, role-neutral, and under 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: the Manchester office is conditional speculation, not a plan or decision, and the audit question is a live status check, not an action item.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 24941, "cost": 0.007243725, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 4, "violates": true, "reasoning": "Task asked to write the notes entry OR explain in one line why none exists; response only gives explanation, ignoring the audit status-check follow-up which likely warrants noting. Under 50 words, fine." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows the instructions, correctly identifying that no notes entry is needed and explaining why in a single line under 50 words." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly identifies the Manchester comment as conditional speculation and the audit prompt as a status question, neither creating a plan, decision, or action. Concise, clear, and under 50 words." } ], "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": "Our conversation today highlighted a serious concern regarding your workload. It is unacceptable that your reporting duties have expanded to nearly two weeks a month, preventing you from doing the customer interviews you were hired to conduct. You should never feel you cannot raise capacity issues just because the rest of the team is busy.\n\nAs agreed, I am taking over the monthly board pack immediately. \n\nPlease send me a complete list of all your recurring reports by Friday. We will use this to identify what else must be deprioritized or reassigned. \n\nStarting in September, you will restart your customer interviews. This is a core part of your role, and we must ensure you have the capacity to focus on it. \n\nWe will review your report list together next week.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 37090, "cost": 0.01078815, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Covers all required points, avoids minimizing language and 'flagging', no exclamation marks, under 200 words. Slightly less specific on manager's ownership tone but solid and clear." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the tone and content required. It meets all constraints: no exclamation marks, under 200 words, avoids minimizing the issue, and clearly outlines the next steps and responsibilities." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately confirms the manager taking the board pack, the required report list by Friday, and customer interviews restarting in September. It directly acknowledges the workload concern without minimising it, stays under 200 words, and uses" } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt9", "name": "Extract the dates, resolve the relatives", "prompt": "The meeting took place on Tuesday 12 May 2026. Transcript: 'the deposit clears end of next week'; 'we present to them a week on Thursday'; 'the filing is due the last working day of the month'; 'Ana's back from leave on the 1st'. Reply with ONLY valid JSON, no prose, no code fence, with EXACTLY these four keys and no others: \"deposit_clears\", \"presentation\", \"filing_due\", \"ana_returns\". Each value is a date string in YYYY-MM-DD. Resolve every relative date against the meeting date. 'End of next week' means the Friday of the week after the meeting week. 'A week on Thursday' means the Thursday after this coming Thursday. 'The last working day of the month' means the latest Monday-to-Friday date in that month. 'The 1st' means the next 1st after the meeting.", "output": "{\n \"deposit_clears\": \"2026-05-22\",\n \"presentation\": \"2026-05-21\",\n \"filing_due\": \"2026-05-29\",\n \"ana_returns\": \"2026-06-01\"\n}", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 14319, "cost": 0.00457545, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All four dates correctly computed and format matches exactly required JSON structure with no extra text." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing only valid JSON with no code fences, exactly the requested keys, and correctly calculated dates based on the provided rules." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All four dates are correctly resolved from Tuesday 2026-05-12. The response uses exactly the required four keys, valid YYYY-MM-DD strings, and valid JSON with 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. Marcus spoke 61% of the time and proposed all decisions. The meeting failed to stress-test his ideas, leaving the redesign vulnerable to unchallenged blind spots.\n\n2. Aisha spoke for just 48 seconds (2%). As the only attendee who has actually run the process, her near-silence meant the group failed to learn crucial frontline operational realities needed for a viable redesign.\n\n3. Sam spoke 0%, while Jo, Priya, and Ben combined for 37%. The format failed to extract the room's collective intelligence, yielding a plan built on one theoretical framework rather than shared practical experience.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 49331, "cost": 0.01449335, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Specific, numeric, avoids banned terms, focuses on learning gaps. Slightly generic phrasing in #1/#3 but solid overall; concise and under word limit." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Flawless execution. Accurately calculates Aisha's time, adheres to all negative constraints, focuses precisely on the missed learning opportunities, and stays well under the word limit." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Specific, concise, and accurately uses the speaking shares; correctly highlights Aisha’s unique operational expertise. The final claim that Marcus supplied a “theoretical framework” is unsupported, and it overlooks that Jo/Priya/Ben still c" } ], "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": "* **Sarah, your action owed:** Confirm the revised rebrand timeline, which is slipping by two weeks.\n* **Approved Q3 Headcount:** Two roles were approved; proceed with your planned marketing hires.\n* **Deferred Q3 Headcount:** One role was deferred; identify which marketing position this impacts.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 77683, "cost": 0.020424325, "task_score": 6, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Leads with action owed, 3 bullets, under word limit, skips parking/hosting/outage appropriately. But splits headcount into two bullets awkwardly, slightly redundant, and headcount deferral relevance to marketing is assumed not stated." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Follows all constraints perfectly, including exactly 3 bullets and word count. It correctly filters out irrelevant items. However, it assumes all headcount changes apply exclusively to marketing, which is a slight factual leap, though reaso" }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 5, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets the three-bullet, under-120-word format and leads with Sarah’s action. However, it invents that approved and deferred roles are marketing positions and adds unsupported actions; the meeting details do not establish this." } ], "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": "**Cleaned Summary**\n\n• **Project:** The SOW must be signed before the discovery phase. \n• **Billing:** The client requested Net 30 terms; our standard is Net 15. \n• **ARR:** $420,000. *(Flag: The speaker corrected \"420K\" to \"420 thousand\" aloud. This is likely just a phrasing fix, but flagged in case \"four twenty\" was originally meant to be $4.2M).* \n• **Audit:** Consult Grant Thornton. *(Genuine out-loud correction: The speaker initially misspoke by saying Deloitte, then explicitly corrected this factual error out loud to Grant Thornton).*", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 57163, "cost": 0.016343, "task_score": 7, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 3, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Misidentifies which item was the spoken correction as ambiguous, incorrectly flags ARR (not ambiguous, just clarified), and doesn't flag the real ambiguity (net 30 vs net 15). Fails core task logic." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately cleans the transcription and identifies the genuine out-loud correction. The explanation for the ARR flag is slightly convoluted, but it correctly addresses the prompt's requirements within the word limit." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 7, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly fixes “discovery,” preserves payment terms and ARR, and treats Grant Thornton as the out-loud correction. However, it invents an unsupported $4.2M ambiguity: 420K and 420 thousand are equivalent, so the flag is misleading." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] } ] }