# Experiment Report: GPT-5.2 + gpt-audio-1.5 Multi-Agent Audio (Information sector)

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| **Experiment ID** | `exp012_GPT52Chat_audio_multiagent` |
| **Condition** | Multi-Agent: task-aware audio analysis + code |
| **Model** | gpt-5.2-chat |
| **Execution Mode** | subprocess |
| **Date** | 2026-03-08 |
| **Duration** | 17m 7s |
| **Generated At** | 2026-03-08T20:00:31.351078+00:00 |
| 🤗 HF Dataset | [exp012_GPT52Chat_audio_multiagent](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp012_GPT52Chat_audio_multiagent) |
| 📊 Self-Report | [self_report.json](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp012_GPT52Chat_audio_multiagent/blob/main/self_report.json) |
| 📊 Grading | ⏳ Awaiting (`scores.json`) |

## Execution Summary *(Self-Assessed, Pre-Grading)*

> **Note:** This summary is based on the LLM's self-assessed confidence scores (Self-QA) during task execution — not on external grading results. Actual grading scores from evaluators are not yet available at this stage.

This run evaluated GPT-5.2-chat in a multi-agent, task-aware audio analysis plus code setup for Information-sector work, executed in subprocess mode. Across 25 total tasks, the system completed 24 successfully, for a 96.0% task completion rate, with 1 recorded error and 5 tasks requiring retries. At a high level, execution reliability was strong on completion, but the quality signal from the model's own review was more moderate than the completion rate alone suggests.

The average self-assessed confidence / LLM-evaluated quality was 5.79 out of 10, with observed scores ranging from 3 to 8. This indicates that most tasks appear to have produced usable outputs, but not at uniformly high confidence. In practical terms, the run looks better on whether it finished than on how strongly the model endorsed the final deliverables.

Average latency was 25,553 ms, which is substantial but not unexpected for a multi-agent audio-and-code workflow. The presence of 5 retried tasks likely contributed to this runtime, and the single failure suggests that while the orchestration was generally stable, some tasks still encountered enough friction to exceed recovery capacity.

Deliverable generation quality appears operationally reliable in the sense that outputs were produced for nearly all tasks, but the moderate self-QA average suggests uneven completeness, precision, or polish across generated files. The main highlight is high completion under a relatively complex execution pattern; the main caution is that self-assessed confidence remained mid-range rather than consistently strong.

## Key Metrics

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Tasks | 25 |
| Success | 24 (96.0%) |
| Errors | 1 |
| Retried Tasks | 5 |
| Avg QA Score | 5.79/10 |
| Min QA Score | 3/10 |
| Max QA Score | 8/10 |
| Avg Latency | 25,553ms |
| Max Latency | 40,498ms |
| Total LLM Time | 638s |

## File Generation

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Tasks requiring files | 185 |
| Successfully generated | 14 (7.6%) |
| Failed → dummy created | 171 |

### Resume Rounds

| Round | Attempted | Recovered | Still Failed |
|-------|-----------|-----------|--------------|
| 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |

## Quality Analysis

The QA score distribution points to moderate and somewhat uneven output quality. An average of 5.79/10, with a minimum of 3 and maximum of 8, suggests the run did not collapse into low-quality behavior, but it also did not sustain high-confidence performance across tasks. The spread implies a mix of acceptable deliverables and weaker cases where the model itself identified limitations.

Sector-level interpretation is straightforward because all reported results sit within the Information sector: completion was high at 24/25, while LLM-evaluated quality averaged 5.8/10. That combination indicates a system that is dependable at producing an answer or file, but less dependable at producing outputs it rates as strong. With only one sector represented, there are no cross-sector differences to compare; the meaningful observation is the gap between execution success and self-assessed confidence within this sector.

Occupation-specific observations cannot be separated from the provided aggregate results. No occupation-level breakdown is available, so any finer-grained claims about which role types performed better or worse would be unsupported. The defensible conclusion is that, across the Information-sector task mix represented here, quality was variable even when task completion remained high.

Latency averaged 25.6 seconds, and the most plausible quality interaction is indirect: retries and more complex multi-agent coordination likely increased runtime and may have coincided with lower-confidence outputs on harder tasks. However, with only aggregate latency and QA statistics, a strong task-by-task correlation cannot be established. From a deliverable-file perspective, generation quality looks broadly consistent enough to finish most tasks, but not consistent enough to infer uniformly high-quality artifacts.

## Sector Breakdown

| Sector | Tasks | Success | Success% | Avg QA | Avg Latency |
|--------|-------|---------|----------|--------|-------------|
| Information | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 5.79/10 | 25,553ms |

## Task Results

| # | Task ID | Sector | Occupation | Status | Retry | Files | QA Score | Latency |
|---|---------|--------|------------|--------|-------|-------|----------|---------|
| 1 | `99ac6944…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 5 | 5/10 | 27835ms |
| 2 | `f9a1c16c…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 20824ms |
| 3 | `38889c3b…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | Yes | 6 | 6/10 | 29490ms |
| 4 | `ff85ee58…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 36027ms |
| 5 | `4b894ae3…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 16033ms |
| 6 | `401a07f1…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 23877ms |
| 7 | `afe56d05…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 30708ms |
| 8 | `9a8c8e28…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 6 | 7/10 | 31062ms |
| 9 | `3a4c347c…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 21554ms |
| 10 | `ec2fccc9…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 34279ms |
| 11 | `8c8fc328…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 14135ms |
| 12 | `e222075d…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 4/10 | 29521ms |
| 13 | `c94452e4…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 25086ms |
| 14 | `75401f7c…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 3/10 | 29423ms |
| 15 | `a941b6d8…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 3/10 | 31391ms |
| 16 | `60221cd0…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 24143ms |
| 17 | `ef8719da…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 20268ms |
| 18 | `3baa0009…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 20434ms |
| 19 | `5d0feb24…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 26265ms |
| 20 | `6974adea…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 40498ms |
| 21 | `6241e678…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 24121ms |
| 22 | `e14e32ba…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 22918ms |
| 23 | `b1a79ce1…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 17789ms |
| 24 | `e4f664ea…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 24768ms |
| 25 | `a079d38f…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 16379ms |

## QA Issues

### ✅ `99ac6944…` — score 5/10
- Selected mixer lacks onboard compression, reverb, and delay required for vocals.
- PDF uses placeholder product links instead of actual retailer URLs.
- Independent effected mixes per singer are not clearly achievable with chosen mixer.
  > 💡 Select an analogue mixer with built-in effects and compressors, and add real retailer links.

### ✅ `f9a1c16c…` — score 6/10
- Output list contains a typo and mislabeling for Vox2 output.
- IEM XLR splits are not clearly listed as separate outputs.
- Wedge numbering counterclockwise from stage right is unclear or incorrect.
  > 💡 Correct output labeling, explicitly list IEM splits, and verify wedge numbering orientation.

### ✅ `38889c3b…` — score 6/10
- Musical keys and bridge timing compliance cannot be verified from provided materials.
- Synchronization to the provided drum reference is not demonstrated or documented.
- Sample licensing and source compliance are not documented.
  > 💡 Include a brief production notes document verifying keys, timings, drum sync, and sample compliance.

### ✅ `ff85ee58…` — score 6/10
- Peak limit specified as dBFS instead of required -0.1 dB LUFS.
- No evidence or report verifying LUFS, bit depth, or sample rate compliance.
- Resync and timing-tightening process not demonstrated or documented.
  > 💡 Provide measurable loudness, peak, format verification and briefly document the resync method used.

### ✅ `4b894ae3…` — score 6/10
- Wrong bass notes were silenced instead of replaced with in-key notes.
- No explicit confirmation of using the provided timecode reference document.
- Bass correction approach does not fully meet stated musical requirements.
  > 💡 Replace incorrect bass notes with musically appropriate copied notes and explicitly reference the provided edit timecodes.

### ✅ `401a07f1…` — score 6/10
- No explicit hyperlinks to referenced Nature, Science, Scientific American, or Guardian articles.
- Editorial word count appears below the required 500 words.
- Document preview shows a truncated final paragraph, suggesting incomplete content.
  > 💡 Add verified hyperlinks, expand to 500 words, and ensure the document ends cleanly.

### ✅ `afe56d05…` — score 5/10
- Document is far shorter than the required 2,200–2,300 words.
- External resources and hyperlinks are not clearly included or credited.
- Some sections appear underdeveloped given the scope of guidance required.
  > 💡 Expand all sections to meet length requirements and add properly attributed hyperlinks to the specified resources.

### ✅ `9a8c8e28…` — score 7/10
- Framework guide bibliography lacks clickable links as required.
- Framework guide is very brief for a comprehensive best-practice framework.
- PDF preview does not evidence detailed legal compliance guidance depth.
  > 💡 Expand the framework guide with linked references and deeper practical examples.

### ✅ `3a4c347c…` — score 6/10
- No detailed four-week broadcast and publication schedule is clearly provided.
- VT, radio, and podcast re-versioning plan is not explicitly defined.
- Sponsorship success KPI is not clearly specified or measured.
  > 💡 Add a clear weekly schedule, explicit VT/radio plans, and a defined sponsorship KPI.

### ✅ `ec2fccc9…` — score 5/10
- Secondary keywords list is missing or not clearly included at the end.
- Pull quote caption is not clearly identified.
- Artist highlights and required reference links are incomplete or unclear.
  > 💡 Add explicit secondary keywords, a labeled pull quote caption, and verified artist and news links.

### ✅ `8c8fc328…` — score 8/10
- Script does not explicitly integrate or reference the provided voiceover document.
- Audience targeting could be clearer with occasional kid-friendly phrasing cues.
  > 💡 Explicitly align sections with the provided VO script and add light child-oriented narration notes.

### ❌ `e222075d…` — score 4/10
- No 30-second H.264 MP4 edit was delivered.
- Stock footage and music logs lack required preview URLs.
- Scratch voiceover track is missing.
  > 💡 Provide a complete 30-second MP4 with scratch VO and populated preview links.

### ❌ `75401f7c…` — score 3/10
- Final edited MP4 showreel was not delivered.
- Output provides planning documents instead of executing the edit.
- No rendered video meeting codec, resolution, and duration requirements.
  > 💡 Produce and deliver the actual edited MP4 showreel per specifications, not just pre-production materials.

### ❌ `a941b6d8…` — score 3/10
- No final composited video file was created or delivered.
- Required stabilization, masking, tracking, and compositing were not actually executed.
- Deliverables are planning documents, not the requested VFX shot output.
  > 💡 Produce and deliver the actual composited MP4 matching the base clip specifications.

### ✅ `60221cd0…` — score 8/10
- Voter registration deadline date may be inaccurate by one day.
  > 💡 Verify all election dates directly against the Virginia Department of Elections before publication.

### ✅ `ef8719da…` — score 6/10
- Background references lack clickable hyperlinks as required.
- One reference entry is truncated and incomplete.
- Text response promises deliverable formatting rather than presenting the pitch directly.
  > 💡 Add proper hyperlinks, fix the truncated reference, and align the response format with the assignment.

### ✅ `3baa0009…` — score 7/10
- Article ends with an incomplete sentence, indicating truncation.
- Forecast describes slower growth, not explicitly negative global growth as requested.
- Requirement for 300–500 words is unclear due to truncation.
  > 💡 Complete the article, explicitly address negative growth framing, and verify final word count.

### ❌ `5d0feb24…` — score 4/10
- Response did not analyze or reference the specific arXiv study 2401.11815.
- Editor redline appears to invent or replace the reporter’s draft rather than review it.
- Novelty of the research process and future discovery potential are insufficiently addressed.
  > 💡 Re-review the actual reporter draft and explicitly ground edits in the cited arXiv paper and sources.

### ✅ `6241e678…` — score 7/10
- Schedule includes unrequested tasks like casting, location scouting, and crew hiring.
- Client review windows are lumped, not clearly shown as two-day reviews per delivery.
- Color-coding for phases and client tasks is not clearly verifiable in the PDF.
  > 💡 Remove out-of-scope tasks and clearly label color-coded phases with explicit client review durations.

### ✅ `e14e32ba…` — score 7/10
- Business hours are not listed for any restaurant.
- Physical addresses or locations are missing.
- Image links are websites, not direct photos.
  > 💡 Add addresses, hours, direct photo URLs, and explicit website fields for each deli.

### ✅ `b1a79ce1…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing actual moodboard content.
- Moodboard content cannot be verified for color palette and reference imagery.
  > 💡 Add a brief description of included colors and reference images to confirm requirements are met.

### ❌ `e4f664ea…` — score 4/10
- Script length is only two pages, far below the required 8–12 pages.
- Text response falsely claims a complete 8–12 page, 10–15 scene script.
- Overall scope and story development are insufficient for production readiness.
  > 💡 Expand the screenplay to 8–12 pages with additional scenes and narrative progression.

### ✅ `a079d38f…` — score 6/10
- Crew hours calculation is incorrect; two shoot days should total 34 hours per role.
- Standard client service rates are not referenced or documented as required.
- Pre-production time and costs are not clearly included or itemized.
  > 💡 Correct hour calculations, explicitly apply standard rates, and add a clear pre-production line item.

## Failure Analysis

All 25 tasks were in the Information sector, so the main differences are not sectoral but occupational and deliverable-type specific. The clearest cluster is Film and Video Editors, which had the weakest outcomes: one hard failure (c94452e4-39cd-4846-b73a-ab75933d1ad7), one low-quality retried success (e222075d-5d62-4757-ae3c-e34b0846583b, QA 4), and two very low-quality successes where the requested finished video was replaced by planning documents (75401f7c-396d-406d-b08e-938874ad1045 and a941b6d8-4289-4500-b45a-f8e4fc94a724, both QA 3). By contrast, text-heavy roles performed better overall: News Analysts/Reporters/Journalists were the strongest group, with two QA 8 tasks (60221cd0-686e-4a08-985e-d9bb2fa18501 and 6974adea-8326-43fa-8187-2724b15d9546), and even their weaker cases were usually content-grounding or truncation problems rather than complete deliverable substitution.

A major failure mode was substitution of the requested artifact with an easier surrogate. This is most visible in media-editing work: e222075d-5d62-4757-ae3c-e34b0846583b did not deliver the required 30-second MP4, while 75401f7c-396d-406d-b08e-938874ad1045 and a941b6d8-4289-4500-b45a-f8e4fc94a724 delivered planning assets instead of an edited showreel or composited VFX shot. The contrast inside the same occupation is important: 8c8fc328-69fc-4559-a13f-82087baef0a1 scored 8 because the task was a script, not a rendered video output. That suggests the weakness is less about film/video domain knowledge and more about tool-backed execution when the task requires generating a binary media asset with timing, codec, or compositing constraints.

A second, broader pattern is specification-compliance drift on otherwise completed tasks. Audio and Video Technician tasks mostly finished, but several had unverified or partially met technical requirements: 99ac6944-4ec6-4848-959c-a460ac705c6f lacked the required mixer capabilities and real retailer URLs; 38889c3b-e3d4-49c8-816a-3cc8e5313aba and ff85ee58-bc9f-4aa2-806d-87edeabb1b81 missed documentation proving sync, loudness, or format compliance; 4b894ae3-1f23-4560-b13d-07ed1132074e used the wrong musical correction method. Editors showed a parallel pattern in document form: missing hyperlinks, under-length copy, truncated endings, or incomplete schedules in 401a07f1-d57e-4bb0-889b-22de8c900f0e, afe56d05-dac8-47d7-a233-ad1d035ca5bd, 3a4c347c-4aec-43c7-9a54-eb1f816ab1f9, and ec2fccc9-b7f6-4c73-bf51-896fdb433cec. Producers and Directors also often produced usable but incomplete outputs, such as missing restaurant addresses/hours (e14e32ba-d310-4d45-9b8a-6d73d0ece1ae), an under-scoped screenplay (e4f664ea-0e5c-4e4e-a0d3-a87a33da947a), or incorrect hours/costing logic (a079d38f-c529-436a-beca-3e291f9e62a3).

Retries improved completion more than quality. Five tasks were retried; four eventually completed, but the hardest ones still remained weak or failed. The clearest examples are e222075d-5d62-4757-ae3c-e34b0846583b, which still lacked the core MP4 after retry, and c94452e4-39cd-4846-b73a-ab75933d1ad7, which failed because moviepy was unavailable in the environment. The retried audio tasks 38889c3b-e3d4-49c8-816a-3cc8e5313aba and 4b894ae3-1f23-4560-b13d-07ed1132074e recovered to QA 6, but not to high-confidence outputs. Latency does not show a clean quality relationship: some long tasks were strong (6974adea-8326-43fa-8187-2724b15d9546 at 40.5s, QA 8), while several 29-31s film/video tasks were among the worst. The better explanation is that higher-complexity multimedia tasks stress the toolchain and validation stack, producing either environment failures or artifact-nonproduction rather than merely slow but correct results.

## Recommendations

First, harden the execution environment for media tasks before generation begins. The only outright failure, c94452e4-39cd-4846-b73a-ab75933d1ad7, was caused by a missing moviepy dependency, which means the system should run a per-task preflight that checks imports, ffmpeg availability, codec support, write permissions, and a tiny render smoke test before the main attempt. For video/audio jobs, add automatic fallback paths: if moviepy fails, switch to ffmpeg CLI or an alternate rendering library rather than consuming the retry on the same broken environment.

Second, split orchestration by deliverable class instead of treating all tasks as generic content generation. The evidence from e222075d-5d62-4757-ae3c-e34b0846583b, 75401f7c-396d-406d-b08e-938874ad1045, and a941b6d8-4289-4500-b45a-f8e4fc94a724 shows that when a task requires an actual rendered MP4, the model sometimes defaults to planning documents. Add a task router that labels work as artifact-generation versus document-generation. For artifact-generation tasks, require a render step plus machine-verifiable checks: output file exists, duration matches, codec/resolution are correct, audio track presence is confirmed, and a metadata manifest is attached. If those checks fail, the run should not be marked successful even if supporting documents were produced.

Third, tighten prompt engineering and post-run QA around explicit requirement extraction. Many non-failing tasks lost quality because the system met the broad brief but skipped small, testable constraints such as hyperlinks, word count, direct URLs, addresses, page count, or measurable audio compliance. This affects 401a07f1-d57e-4bb0-889b-22de8c900f0e, afe56d05-dac8-47d7-a233-ad1d035ca5bd, ec2fccc9-b7f6-4c73-bf51-896fdb433cec, e14e32ba-d310-4d45-9b8a-6d73d0ece1ae, a079d38f-c529-436a-beca-3e291f9e62a3, 99ac6944-4ec6-4848-959c-a460ac705c6f, and ff85ee58-bc9f-4aa2-806d-87edeabb1b81. The fix is to force a structured checklist at planning time, then run validators after generation: word-count validator, hyperlink validator, spreadsheet formula sanity check, audio loudness/format probe, and media metadata probe. For longer editorial/script tasks, allocate a larger completion budget and require section-level minimums so outputs do not truncate or undershoot scope.

Fourth, change retry and acceptance policy. The current setup uses retries effectively for completion, but not for quality recovery. When the first pass misses the primary artifact or critical spec, the second pass should change something substantive: different toolchain, stronger tool-using model, narrowed task decomposition, or a specialized media-render agent. Do not treat QA 3-4 outcomes with missing primary outputs as operational successes; tasks like e222075d-5d62-4757-ae3c-e34b0846583b, 75401f7c-396d-406d-b08e-938874ad1045, a941b6d8-4289-4500-b45a-f8e4fc94a724, and e4f664ea-0e5c-4e4e-a0d3-a87a33da947a should trigger hard-fail thresholds. Occupation-specific gates would help: Film/Video Editors require the actual media file, Audio Technicians require compliance evidence, Editors/Journalists require complete linked sourcing and target length. The higher-performing text tasks such as 60221cd0-686e-4a08-985e-d9bb2fa18501, 6974adea-8326-43fa-8187-2724b15d9546, and 8c8fc328-69fc-4559-a13f-82087baef0a1 can serve as templates for document workflows, but those templates should not be reused unchanged for media-production tasks.

## Deliverable Files

- `99ac6944…` (Information): 5 file(s)
- `f9a1c16c…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `38889c3b…` (Information): 6 file(s)
- `ff85ee58…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `4b894ae3…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `401a07f1…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `afe56d05…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `9a8c8e28…` (Information): 6 file(s)
- `3a4c347c…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `ec2fccc9…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `8c8fc328…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `e222075d…` (Information): 4 file(s)
- `75401f7c…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `a941b6d8…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `60221cd0…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `ef8719da…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `3baa0009…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `5d0feb24…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `6974adea…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `6241e678…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `e14e32ba…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `b1a79ce1…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `e4f664ea…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `a079d38f…` (Information): 1 file(s)
