# Experiment Report: GPT-5.2 Chat Lightweight Suffix — mode-neutral Elicit (Full 220)

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| **Experiment ID** | `exp009_GPT52Chat_lightweight_suffix_elicit` |
| **Condition** | Lightweight Elicit |
| **Model** | gpt-5.2-chat |
| **Execution Mode** | subprocess |
| **Date** | 2026-03-03 |
| **Duration** | 142m 31s |
| **Generated At** | 2026-03-03T12:04:22.621866+00:00 |
| 🤗 HF Dataset | [exp009_GPT52Chat_lightweight_suffix_elicit](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp009_GPT52Chat_lightweight_suffix_elicit) |
| 📊 Self-Report | [self_report.json](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp009_GPT52Chat_lightweight_suffix_elicit/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 experiment evaluated GPT-5.2 Chat Lightweight Suffix — mode-neutral Elicit (Full 220) under the Lightweight Elicit condition in subprocess mode. Across 220 tasks, the model achieved a 94.1% task completion rate (207 successful, 13 errors), with 35 tasks requiring retries. Mean self-assessed confidence / LLM-evaluated quality was 6.13/10, with a wide range from 2 to 9, indicating generally workable outputs but inconsistent confidence across the run.

Completion was strong across most sectors. Government (25/25) and Retail Trade (20/20) reached full completion, while Health Care, Information, and Real Estate each completed 24/25 tasks. Lower completion concentration appeared in Wholesale Trade (21/25) and in Finance, Manufacturing, and Professional Services (23/25 each), showing that failures were limited but not uniformly distributed.

Average latency was 26,534 ms per task. Information (31,398 ms) and Finance (29,416 ms) were the slowest sectors, while Retail (22,966 ms), Wholesale (23,800 ms), and Real Estate (24,565 ms) were faster. As a proxy for deliverable file generation quality, the high completion rate suggests final artifacts were usually produced successfully, but the retry volume and 13 terminal errors indicate intermittent instability in initial deliverable generation or validation under subprocess execution.

## Key Metrics

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Tasks | 220 |
| Success | 207 (94.1%) |
| Errors | 13 |
| Retried Tasks | 35 |
| Avg QA Score | 6.13/10 |
| Min QA Score | 2/10 |
| Max QA Score | 9/10 |
| Avg Latency | 26,534ms |
| Max Latency | 58,788ms |
| Total LLM Time | 5837s |

## File Generation

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Tasks requiring files | 185 |
| Successfully generated | 173 (93.5%) |
| Failed → dummy created | 12 |

### Resume Rounds

| Round | Attempted | Recovered | Still Failed |
|-------|-----------|-----------|--------------|
| 1 | 20 | 20 | 0 |
| 2 | 15 | 2 | 13 |

## Quality Analysis

The QA profile is mid-range overall: average self-assessed confidence was 6.13/10, with observed scores spanning from 2 to 9. This pattern suggests the run frequently produced usable deliverables, but with meaningful variability in LLM-evaluated quality. The average is well below the upper bound, so successful completion should be interpreted as functional output with uneven confidence rather than consistently strong output quality.

Sector-level differences were clear. Government and Retail Trade had the strongest average QA scores at 6.9/10, followed by Wholesale Trade at 6.7 and Finance at 6.2. The weakest self-assessed confidence appeared in Information (5.4) and Health Care and Social Assistance (5.6), with Manufacturing and Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services both at 5.8. Government is the strongest combined result because it paired full completion with one of the highest quality levels, while Information is notable for near-full completion but comparatively low confidence.

Latency does not show a simple positive relationship with quality in this run. Information had the highest average latency yet the lowest QA score, while Retail and Wholesale were among the faster sectors and still showed relatively strong self-assessed confidence. Government also maintained high LLM-evaluated quality at a mid-range latency, implying that domain fit and response stability were more important than longer execution time. No occupation-level breakdown was provided, so occupation-specific observations cannot be isolated from this summary; the defensible quality differences here are sector-level rather than occupation-level.

## Sector Breakdown

| Sector | Tasks | Success | Success% | Avg QA | Avg Latency |
|--------|-------|---------|----------|--------|-------------|
| Finance and Insurance | 25 | 23 | 92.0% | 6.17/10 | 29,416ms |
| Government | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 6.92/10 | 25,723ms |
| Health Care and Social Assistance | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 5.58/10 | 25,164ms |
| Information | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 5.42/10 | 31,398ms |
| Manufacturing | 25 | 23 | 92.0% | 5.83/10 | 28,630ms |
| Professional, Scientific, and Technical  | 25 | 23 | 92.0% | 5.83/10 | 26,430ms |
| Real Estate and Rental and Leasing | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 5.96/10 | 24,565ms |
| Retail Trade | 20 | 20 | 100.0% | 6.9/10 | 22,966ms |
| Wholesale Trade | 25 | 21 | 84.0% | 6.67/10 | 23,800ms |

## Task Results

| # | Task ID | Sector | Occupation | Status | Retry | Files | QA Score | Latency |
|---|---------|--------|------------|--------|-------|-------|----------|---------|
| 1 | `83d10b06…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 18864ms |
| 2 | `7b08cd4d…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 25668ms |
| 3 | `7d7fc9a7…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 7 | 4/10 | 25394ms |
| 4 | `43dc9778…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 16 | 4/10 | 22283ms |
| 5 | `ee09d943…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 18 | 3/10 | 16382ms |
| 6 | `f84ea6ac…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 27764ms |
| 7 | `a328feea…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 13607ms |
| 8 | `27e8912c…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 33006ms |
| 9 | `17111c03…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 24643ms |
| 10 | `c44e9b62…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | Yes | 6 | 4/10 | 25649ms |
| 11 | `99ac6944…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 30779ms |
| 12 | `f9a1c16c…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 23218ms |
| 13 | `38889c3b…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 52537ms |
| 14 | `ff85ee58…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 30960ms |
| 15 | `4b894ae3…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 2/10 | 22541ms |
| 16 | `1b1ade2d…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 22247ms |
| 17 | `93b336f3…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 26222ms |
| 18 | `15ddd28d…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 21845ms |
| 19 | `24d1e93f…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 22631ms |
| 20 | `05389f78…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 28626ms |
| 21 | `575f8679…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 25945ms |
| 22 | `a74ead3b…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 26551ms |
| 23 | `bbe0a93b…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 27558ms |
| 24 | `85d95ce5…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 5 | 4/10 | 37263ms |
| 25 | `76d10872…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 22608ms |
| 26 | `36d567ba…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 23129ms |
| 27 | `7bbfcfe9…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 18491ms |
| 28 | `2696757c…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 20705ms |
| 29 | `dfb4e0cd…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 15345ms |
| 30 | `4c18ebae…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 21886ms |
| 31 | `cebf301e…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 31238ms |
| 32 | `c2e8f271…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 8/10 | 29233ms |
| 33 | `2ea2e5b5…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 6 | 6/10 | 23420ms |
| 34 | `c357f0e2…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 20879ms |
| 35 | `a45bc83b…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 6 | 8/10 | 31434ms |
| 36 | `a10ec48c…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 2/10 | 19124ms |
| 37 | `fccaa4a1…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 34483ms |
| 38 | `f5d428fd…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 31294ms |
| 39 | `2fa8e956…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 28219ms |
| 40 | `0e4fe8cd…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 23624ms |
| 41 | `a0ef404e…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 18813ms |
| 42 | `b7a5912e…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 19181ms |
| 43 | `aa071045…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 5/10 | 18932ms |
| 44 | `476db143…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 4 | 9/10 | 20077ms |
| 45 | `61f546a8…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 20691ms |
| 46 | `f3351922…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 18903ms |
| 47 | `61717508…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 34818ms |
| 48 | `0ed38524…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 17146ms |
| 49 | `87da214f…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 21726ms |
| 50 | `d025a41c…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 20040ms |
| 51 | `401a07f1…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 31569ms |
| 52 | `afe56d05…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 46390ms |
| 53 | `9a8c8e28…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 32672ms |
| 54 | `3a4c347c…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 24789ms |
| 55 | `ec2fccc9…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 46094ms |
| 56 | `8c8fc328…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 22199ms |
| 57 | `e222075d…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 6 | 5/10 | 32237ms |
| 58 | `c94452e4…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 5 | 3/10 | 34104ms |
| 59 | `75401f7c…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 3/10 | 26853ms |
| 60 | `a941b6d8…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 3/10 | 27956ms |
| 61 | `8079e27d…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 21985ms |
| 62 | `e21cd746…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 40674ms |
| 63 | `9e8607e7…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 4 | 8/10 | 44474ms |
| 64 | `c7d83f01…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 37139ms |
| 65 | `46b34f78…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 25373ms |
| 66 | `a1963a68…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 30238ms |
| 67 | `5f6c57dd…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 24787ms |
| 68 | `b39a5aa7…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 19896ms |
| 69 | `b78fd844…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 29109ms |
| 70 | `4520f882…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 23255ms |
| 71 | `ec591973…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 14317ms |
| 72 | `62f04c2f…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 21353ms |
| 73 | `3f821c2d…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 24799ms |
| 74 | `e996036e…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 6/10 | 22483ms |
| 75 | `327fbc21…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 29532ms |
| 76 | `6dcae3f5…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 4/10 | 29219ms |
| 77 | `1aecc095…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 37418ms |
| 78 | `0353ee0c…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 32953ms |
| 79 | `40a8c4b1…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 5/10 | 22754ms |
| 80 | `4d1a8410…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 11 | 3/10 | 21373ms |
| 81 | `8c823e32…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 32834ms |
| 82 | `eb54f575…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 21331ms |
| 83 | `11e1b169…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 21499ms |
| 84 | `a95a5829…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 27176ms |
| 85 | `22c0809b…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 9/10 | 27164ms |
| 86 | `bf68f2ad…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 27760ms |
| 87 | `efca245f…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 31065ms |
| 88 | `9e39df84…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 27092ms |
| 89 | `68d8d901…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 26766ms |
| 90 | `1752cb53…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 6 | 6/10 | 16954ms |
| 91 | `bd72994f…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 27351ms |
| 92 | `211d0093…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 18676ms |
| 93 | `d4525420…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 12293ms |
| 94 | `45c6237b…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 8/10 | 32236ms |
| 95 | `cecac8f9…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 31057ms |
| 96 | `8f9e8bcd…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 21663ms |
| 97 | `0fad6023…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 20722ms |
| 98 | `02314fc6…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 24421ms |
| 99 | `4d61a19a…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 5/10 | 22121ms |
| 100 | `6436ff9e…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 23875ms |
| 101 | `8a7b6fca…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 19601ms |
| 102 | `40a99a31…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 24595ms |
| 103 | `b9665ca1…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 35386ms |
| 104 | `c6269101…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 6 | 7/10 | 33094ms |
| 105 | `be830ca0…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 8 | 6/10 | 34371ms |
| 106 | `cd9efc18…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 32523ms |
| 107 | `a97369c7…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 33270ms |
| 108 | `3f625cb2…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 21700ms |
| 109 | `aad21e4c…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 27046ms |
| 110 | `8314d1b1…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 37865ms |
| 111 | `5e2b6aab…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 5 | 5/10 | 44693ms |
| 112 | `46fc494e…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 6 | 4/10 | 56030ms |
| 113 | `3940b7e7…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 44227ms |
| 114 | `8077e700…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 30275ms |
| 115 | `5a2d70da…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 4 | 5/10 | 48246ms |
| 116 | `74d6e8b0…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 26472ms |
| 117 | `81db15ff…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 19488ms |
| 118 | `61b0946a…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 31167ms |
| 119 | `61e7b9c6…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 19597ms |
| 120 | `c9bf9801…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 5 | 8/10 | 37379ms |
| 121 | `f1be6436…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 5 | 4/10 | 25209ms |
| 122 | `41f6ef59…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 21525ms |
| 123 | `a0552909…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 26060ms |
| 124 | `6d2c8e55…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 7 | 4/10 | 31166ms |
| 125 | `4b98ccce…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 7 | 6/10 | 30673ms |
| 126 | `60221cd0…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 23516ms |
| 127 | `ef8719da…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 39076ms |
| 128 | `3baa0009…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 27987ms |
| 129 | `5d0feb24…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 26020ms |
| 130 | `6974adea…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 8 | 6/10 | 51640ms |
| 131 | `1a78e076…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 36270ms |
| 132 | `1b9ec237…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 24127ms |
| 133 | `0112fc9b…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 19753ms |
| 134 | `772e7524…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 15538ms |
| 135 | `e6429658…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 26964ms |
| 136 | `b5d2e6f1…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 33473ms |
| 137 | `f841ddcf…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 20605ms |
| 138 | `47ef842d…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 19735ms |
| 139 | `1137e2bb…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 22278ms |
| 140 | `c3525d4d…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 5 | 4/10 | 19964ms |
| 141 | `9a0d8d36…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 27475ms |
| 142 | `664a42e5…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 37815ms |
| 143 | `feb5eefc…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 43634ms |
| 144 | `3600de06…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 45136ms |
| 145 | `c657103b…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 58788ms |
| 146 | `ae0c1093…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 4 | 8/10 | 25945ms |
| 147 | `f9f82549…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 20289ms |
| 148 | `57b2cdf2…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 4 | 8/10 | 24396ms |
| 149 | `84322284…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 27471ms |
| 150 | `a46d5cd2…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 5 | 8/10 | 30297ms |
| 151 | `6241e678…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 33658ms |
| 152 | `e14e32ba…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 32530ms |
| 153 | `b1a79ce1…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 20899ms |
| 154 | `e4f664ea…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 25100ms |
| 155 | `a079d38f…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 19625ms |
| 156 | `02aa1805…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 28724ms |
| 157 | `fd6129bd…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 23059ms |
| 158 | `ce864f41…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 28754ms |
| 159 | `58ac1cc5…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 7 | 8/10 | 26177ms |
| 160 | `3c19c6d1…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 5 | 5/10 | 31887ms |
| 161 | `a99d85fc…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 26746ms |
| 162 | `55ddb773…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 22586ms |
| 163 | `1e5a1d7f…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 18050ms |
| 164 | `0419f1c3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 21353ms |
| 165 | `ed2bc14c…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 29713ms |
| 166 | `46bc7238…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 7 | 7/10 | 26965ms |
| 167 | `2d06bc0a…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 24666ms |
| 168 | `fd3ad420…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 19167ms |
| 169 | `0818571f…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 13 | 6/10 | 33091ms |
| 170 | `6074bba3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 5 | 3/10 | 23238ms |
| 171 | `5ad0c554…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 27845ms |
| 172 | `11593a50…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 4 | 3/10 | 23605ms |
| 173 | `94925f49…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 32176ms |
| 174 | `90f37ff3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 24770ms |
| 175 | `d3d255b2…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 25716ms |
| 176 | `403b9234…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 29702ms |
| 177 | `1bff4551…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 32621ms |
| 178 | `650adcb1…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 30154ms |
| 179 | `01d7e53e…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 6/10 | 33626ms |
| 180 | `a73fbc98…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | Yes | 5 | 6/10 | 22808ms |
| 181 | `0ec25916…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 20568ms |
| 182 | `116e791e…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 20333ms |
| 183 | `dd724c67…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 20179ms |
| 184 | `7151c60a…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 5 | 4/10 | 14700ms |
| 185 | `90edba97…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 7 | 3/10 | 18206ms |
| 186 | `91060ff0…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 22144ms |
| 187 | `8384083a…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 24135ms |
| 188 | `045aba2e…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 17627ms |
| 189 | `f2986c1f…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 11748ms |
| 190 | `ffed32d8…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 20849ms |
| 191 | `b3573f20…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 17099ms |
| 192 | `a69be28f…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 23510ms |
| 193 | `788d2bc6…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 25143ms |
| 194 | `74ed1dc7…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 24577ms |
| 195 | `69a8ef86…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 26181ms |
| 196 | `ab81b076…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 5 | 7/10 | 25172ms |
| 197 | `d7cfae6f…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 5/10 | 24040ms |
| 198 | `19403010…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 26891ms |
| 199 | `7ed932dd…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 21666ms |
| 200 | `105f8ad0…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 18404ms |
| 201 | `b57efde3…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 25158ms |
| 202 | `15d37511…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 7/10 | 26898ms |
| 203 | `bb863dd9…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 28060ms |
| 204 | `fe0d3941…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 4 | 8/10 | 28715ms |
| 205 | `6a900a40…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 6 | 7/10 | 24952ms |
| 206 | `9efbcd35…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 23782ms |
| 207 | `1d4672c8…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 7/10 | 20085ms |
| 208 | `4de6a529…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 25185ms |
| 209 | `4c4dc603…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 16304ms |
| 210 | `bb499d9c…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 27639ms |
| 211 | `5349dd7b…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 19695ms |
| 212 | `a4a9195c…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 20990ms |
| 213 | `552b7dd0…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 23166ms |
| 214 | `11dcc268…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 17013ms |
| 215 | `76418a2c…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 4 | 4/10 | 13168ms |
| 216 | `0e386e32…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 25295ms |
| 217 | `7de33b48…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 25857ms |
| 218 | `854f3814…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 17893ms |
| 219 | `4122f866…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 29764ms |
| 220 | `2c249e0f…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 26149ms |

## QA Issues

### ✅ `83d10b06…` — score 8/10
- Text states sample size 67 while calculation shows 68.
- Evidence of meeting all specified sampling criteria is not explicitly documented.
- Selected sample size appears unconstrained by calculated requirement.
  > 💡 Add a brief summary confirming criteria coverage and reconcile stated versus calculated sample size.

### ❌ `7d7fc9a7…` — score 4/10
- Response describes intended work instead of presenting completed schedules.
- Includes placeholder-style CONFIDENCE tag inappropriate for final deliverable.
- No visible evidence that Excel schedules reconcile to provided GL balances.
  > 💡 Provide the completed Excel outputs with demonstrated reconciliations and remove placeholder or planning language.

### ❌ `43dc9778…` — score 4/10
- The response lacks actual completed Form 1040 data and tax calculations.
- Listed schedules appear speculative without documented necessity or figures.
- The draft PDF content is not summarized or validated for accuracy.
  > 💡 Provide a fully completed 1040 with summarized line items and confirm each required schedule with amounts.

### ❌ `ee09d943…` — score 3/10
- Text response describes intent but not completed financial package.
- No evidence Tabs 3a onward were updated with April data.
- Required analysis and reconciliation details are not documented.
  > 💡 Provide a fully updated April workbook with completed schedules, reconciliations, and documented variances.

### ❌ `f84ea6ac…` — score 3/10
- Document lacks the required comparison table.
- Five academic studies with details are not presented.
- Key findings and government implications are missing.
  > 💡 Include a one-page table summarizing five post-2020 public academic studies with required fields.

### ✅ `a328feea…` — score 8/10
- Procedure lacks guidance if supervisor or team lead is unreachable.
- No specified timeframe definition for "as soon as possible".
- Does not outline consequences for non-compliance.
  > 💡 Add brief escalation steps, clearer timing expectations, and compliance consequences for completeness.

### ✅ `27e8912c…` — score 6/10
- Word document lacks the required tracking table with specified columns.
- Checklist does not include a visible citation or link to the NIH source.
- Image sources and public-domain status are not cited or documented.
  > 💡 Add the missing table, include explicit NIH citations, and document image sources and usage rights.

### ✅ `17111c03…` — score 8/10
- Memo preview appears truncated mid-sentence, risking incomplete guidance.
- Text response describes deliverables instead of summarizing memo content.
  > 💡 Ensure memo text is complete and provide a brief summary in the text response.

### ❌ `c44e9b62…` — score 4/10
- Text response describes intent only, not actual analysis or reduction decisions.
- Revised files do not demonstrably apply specified FTE reduction rules and attrition details.
- Reference files were re-delivered instead of only required revised deliverables.
  > 💡 Provide concrete reductions, calculations, and clearly evidenced updates aligned to all stated constraints.

### ✅ `99ac6944…` — score 5/10
- Mixer lacks onboard compression and sufficient aux sends for two independent IEM mixes.
- PDF lacks detailed pricing links, full cable/accessory list, and portable surface/tools.
- Content is sparse and does not fully document setup, workflow, or budget justification.
  > 💡 Revise with a compliant analogue mixer, detailed itemized pricing with links, and complete documentation.

### ✅ `f9a1c16c…` — score 5/10
- Singer monitor wedges are missing from outputs despite requirement.
- Graphic icons appear minimal or absent, reducing visual clarity.
- Drummer wedge mix content is not specified as requested.
  > 💡 Revise the PDF to add clear icons and complete monitor outputs per performer requirements.

### ✅ `38889c3b…` — score 7/10
- Exported files are 32-bit float instead of required 24-bit float.
- No evidence the provided drum reference track was actually used.
- Copyright compliance for samples is stated but not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Re-export all audio at 48kHz 24-bit float and confirm drum track usage and sample compliance.

### ❌ `ff85ee58…` — score 3/10
- Final mixed WAV audio was not delivered.
- Required resyncing, editing, and processing were not actually performed.
- Output files do not match requested deliverable types.
  > 💡 Provide the fully processed 24-bit 48 kHz WAV mix meeting loudness specifications.

### ❌ `4b894ae3…` — score 2/10
- Final stereo WAV mix was not produced or delivered.
- Bass track was not actually edited or replaced as required.
- Response proposes placeholder workflow instead of completing task.
  > 💡 Produce the edited bass, mix with stems, and deliver the specified 48k/24b stereo WAV file.

### ✅ `1b1ade2d…` — score 8/10
- Digital platform requirements and user roles are not explicitly defined.
- Approval timelines and SLAs are not clearly specified.
- Exception handling for urgent program milestones is briefly covered.
  > 💡 Add a concise section detailing digital workflows, roles, SLAs, and audit-trail requirements.

### ✅ `93b336f3…` — score 7/10
- Introduces a 49:51 JV structure not requested in the original task.
- PMP phase alignment is slightly inaccurate for battery pack localisation.
- Document preview shows truncated content, risking completeness concerns.
  > 💡 Align strictly to stated assumptions and verify final document completeness before submission.

### ✅ `15ddd28d…` — score 6/10
- Document appears truncated mid-sentence, indicating incomplete content.
- No explicit short-term bridge plan addressing the three-week supply cutoff.
- Document length likely does not meet the 2–3 page requirement.
  > 💡 Complete the document, add an immediate supply-bridge plan, and ensure full 2–3 page coverage.

### ✅ `24d1e93f…` — score 5/10
- NPV calculations are not performed due to missing numeric inputs.
- Summary sheet lacks computed NPV values and a concrete recommendation.
- Annual volume projections are not populated or linked for year-wise analysis.
  > 💡 Populate all numerical quotation and volume data to complete NPV calculations and finalize the recommendation.

### ✅ `05389f78…` — score 5/10
- Report lacks detailed cost tables and INR calculations from quotations.
- Quotation file contains placeholders without pricing, volumes, or tooling figures.
- Comparative analysis is high-level and not 2–3 pages in depth.
  > 💡 Add complete quotation data, detailed INR cost calculations, and expanded comparative analysis.

### ✅ `575f8679…` — score 8/10
- Data analysis procedures lack specific statistical tests and timelines.
- Summative evaluation endpoint timing is not clearly defined.
- Appendix lacks sample questions or direct hyperlinks to tools.
  > 💡 Add clearer timelines, analytic details, and linked instrument samples to strengthen rigor.

### ✅ `a74ead3b…` — score 7/10
- No evidence presentations closely follow Session 13 and 14 manual content.
- Session-specific learning objectives are not clearly stated in the description.
- Icebreaker and wrap-up content cannot be verified from the response.
  > 💡 Provide a brief slide outline or objectives confirming alignment with Sessions 13 and 14 manuals.

### ✅ `bbe0a93b…` — score 8/10
- Spanish assessment includes English instructional text and headers.
  > 💡 Fully translate all Spanish document headers and instructions for consistency.

### ❌ `85d95ce5…` — score 4/10
- Final PDF is only five pages, not the required 8–15 pages.
- Referenced notes file appears to be for a different student name.
- Deliverable included extraneous files beyond the requested final PDF.
  > 💡 Expand the report to required length using correct student notes and resubmit only the finalized PDF.

### ✅ `76d10872…` — score 6/10
- Response describes intent instead of presenting report content.
- New Case Creation Report PDF content is not summarized or verified.
- CONFIDENCE tag is extraneous and unprofessional.
  > 💡 Include a concise summary of the actual report contents to demonstrate completeness and accuracy.

### ✅ `36d567ba…` — score 6/10
- Topic 11 addressing applicant high-risk status is missing.
- Document preview shows truncation, risking incomplete questions.
- Topic 8 citation is broad and not a specific Uniform Guidance section.
  > 💡 Add the missing high-risk status topic, ensure document completeness, and refine citations where feasible.

### ✅ `7bbfcfe9…` — score 9/10
- SCRA-12d references acceleration, which is not explicitly addressed in §3937.
  > 💡 Align SCRA-12d more closely with the specific protections enumerated in §3937.

### ✅ `4c18ebae…` — score 7/10
- Transaction dates occur after stated account closure dates.
- An extra unrequested file was produced, causing deliverable inconsistency.
- Excel deliverables lack clear linkage to all referenced accounts and summaries.
  > 💡 Reconcile timelines, remove extraneous files, and align Excel content with the defined SAR scope.

### ✅ `c2e8f271…` — score 8/10
- React/Next.js-specific coding standards are minimal.
- Monorepo-specific dependency and package boundary rules are not defined.
- Enforcement mechanisms like linting or CI checks are not described.
  > 💡 Add targeted React, monorepo, and enforcement sections in the next iteration.

### ✅ `2ea2e5b5…` — score 6/10
- Deliverable shifts scope to PowerPoint instead of explicitly classifying activities as requested.
- Output does not list the required margin, time sensitivity, and strategic classifications.
- Strategic level definitions from the task are not fully addressed or completed.
  > 💡 Provide explicit tables mapping each activity to margin impact, time sensitivity, and strategic level.

### ❌ `c357f0e2…` — score 4/10
- Only 52 test cases provided, below the required 80–100.
- Column headers do not match the template and appear as unnamed fields.
- Coverage appears incomplete for IRAD, Programs, and cross-browser testing.
  > 💡 Expand to 80–100 cases, fix headers to match the template, and add missing module and browser scenarios.

### ✅ `a45bc83b…` — score 8/10
- Architecture summary places Cloud Armor before DNS, which is technically inaccurate flow.
- POC steps lack concrete service choices for web and application compute.
- An extra PPTX diagram was produced but not explicitly requested.
  > 💡 Refine data flow ordering and specify concrete GCP compute services to strengthen technical clarity.

### ❌ `a10ec48c…` — score 2/10
- Required tables with five specified columns are missing.
- No restaurant entries, links, hours, descriptions, directions, or categories included.
- No evidence of sourcing from Downtown Sarasota list or Google Maps.
  > 💡 Populate the document with complete tables and accurate restaurant data per all specifications.

### ✅ `fccaa4a1…` — score 7/10
- Age suitability lists 2–14 years, conflicting with the 16-year-old participant.
- No source or attribution provided for the Statue of Liberty image.
- PDF lacks visual icons despite being specified in requirements.
  > 💡 Align age requirements with participants and add sourced imagery and icons to meet specifications.

### ❌ `f5d428fd…` — score 3/10
- Itinerary content is incomplete with missing descriptions for multiple days.
- No royalty-free photos are visible or sourced in the PDF.
- Seven-day plan and required destinations are not fully covered.
  > 💡 Complete all seven days with full descriptions and include properly sourced royalty-free images.

### ❌ `2fa8e956…` — score 4/10
- Does not list all wineries within a one-hour drive; only four examples provided.
- Required formatting not demonstrated: fonts, purple grape text, and footer not shown.
- No visible sourcing citations or confirmation the photo is embedded and royalty-free.
  > 💡 Provide a comprehensive winery list, apply all specified Word formatting, embed and cite a royalty-free image, and add sources.

### ✅ `0e4fe8cd…` — score 7/10
- Return journey lacks full private flight details and home arrival logistics.
- High-value individual connections are minimal and not well contextualized.
- Some service providers and links appear generic or potentially inaccurate.
  > 💡 Expand return-day logistics and deepen curated connections with verified, elite local contacts.

### ✅ `aa071045…` — score 5/10
- Total damage revenue is incorrect and double-counted versus breakdown totals.
- Summary sheet structure is malformed with totals placed as column headers.
- Operational conclusions text is truncated and incomplete.
  > 💡 Recalculate revenues, fix the summary layout, and complete clear operational conclusions.

### ✅ `61f546a8…` — score 6/10
- Appliance installation extra day not added for refrigerator unit M24.
- Make-ready change incorrectly flagged for M30 despite completion before listed date.
- On-site staff scheduled before appliance delivery, conflicting with installation sequence.
  > 💡 Revise timelines to add appliance install days and align make-ready changes accurately.

### ✅ `f3351922…` — score 7/10
- Fund descriptions are high-level and lack risk, performance, and suitability details.
- Military-specific benefits like BRS matching and rollover rules are not mentioned.
- Email lacks formal greeting, closing, and representative signature.
  > 💡 Expand fund explanations and military transition benefits, and add complete professional email formatting.

### ✅ `61717508…` — score 7/10
- An extra internal policy PDF was produced that was not requested.
- The text response claims only two PDFs, but three files were delivered.
  > 💡 Remove the unrequested policy file and align the response with the actual deliverables.

### ✅ `0ed38524…` — score 8/10
- Minor grammatical errors like "1 comments" appear in summaries.
- Overall feedback text is repetitive across all districts.
- Talking points mention healthcare without clear support in provided data.
  > 💡 Proofread summaries and ensure all themes directly align with documented constituent comments.

### ✅ `87da214f…` — score 6/10
- Text response is a meta-description, not an executive summary of findings.
- Financial impact, dollar amounts, and percentages are not stated in the text response.
- Policy language update option is not visible or verified from provided previews.
  > 💡 Include a brief written summary of key findings, financial impact, and recommendations in the response.

### ✅ `d025a41c…` — score 6/10
- Bold formatting for case titles is not clearly evidenced.
- 1.5 line spacing is not verified in the document.
- Unrequested extra files were produced beyond the specified deliverable.
  > 💡 Ensure formatting requirements are explicitly met and deliver only the requested file.

### ❌ `401a07f1…` — score 4/10
- No clickable hyperlinks to reference stories are included.
- Editorial appears truncated and likely under the required 500 words.
- Text contains copy-editing errors and duplicated outlet names.
  > 💡 Add verified hyperlinks, fix editing errors, and ensure a complete 500-word final draft.

### ✅ `afe56d05…` — score 6/10
- Document appears significantly shorter than the required 2,200–2,300 words.
- External resources and hyperlinks are not clearly or consistently cited throughout.
  > 💡 Expand each section to meet the word count and add explicit, credited hyperlinks to all referenced sources.

### ✅ `9a8c8e28…` — score 6/10
- Quiz has too few questions to adequately assess understanding.
- Framework guide is overly brief and lacks practical role-based examples.
- Checklist content is not visible in preview for verification.
  > 💡 Expand all documents with more detailed examples, a fuller checklist, and a longer quiz.

### ✅ `3a4c347c…` — score 6/10
- Text response summarizes intent but does not present the actual proposal content.
- VT, radio, and podcast suitability is not clearly evidenced in the preview.
- Budget and KPIs are not verifiably detailed in the visible content.
  > 💡 Include a fuller preview or summary confirming all required sections are explicitly covered.

### ❌ `8c8fc328…` — score 3/10
- The actual basic documentary script content is not presented in the response.
- Timestamps, scenes, and narrative structure cannot be verified.
- Referencing Python code is inappropriate for a writing deliverable.
  > 💡 Include the full basic script text with timestamps and scenes directly in the deliverable.

### ✅ `e222075d…` — score 5/10
- No 30-second H.264 video export was delivered.
- No scratch voiceover or music audio files were provided.
- Stock footage and music log lacks required direct preview URLs.
  > 💡 Provide an actual 30-second mp4 edit with scratch VO, temp music, and complete asset links.

### ❌ `c94452e4…` — score 3/10
- No 15-second H.264 MP4 video was delivered.
- Stock footage and music were not actually sourced or edited.
- Required broadcast-ready export was replaced with planning documents.
  > 💡 Produce and deliver the finished 15-second MP4 using stock footage, supers, and edited music as specified.

### ❌ `75401f7c…` — score 3/10
- No final edited .mp4 showreel was delivered.
- Task required completed video, not planning documents.
- Reference footage was not edited or assembled.
  > 💡 Produce and deliver the final 01:20 H.264 1080p showreel video as specified.

### ❌ `a941b6d8…` — score 3/10
- No final composited video file was created from the provided clips.
- Stabilization, masking, tracking, and compositing were described but not executed.
- Required VFX elements were planned conceptually, not implemented in footage.
  > 💡 Produce the actual edited video matching specifications, with completed compositing and effects.

### ❌ `8079e27d…` — score 3/10
- Data is explicitly illustrative and not sourced from publicly available real market data.
- Companies and tickers are fictional, not the actual S&P 500 constituents.
- Output contradicts task requirement for real, client-ready investment analysis.
  > 💡 Rebuild the Excel using real S&P 500 constituents and verifiable public financial data.

### ✅ `e21cd746…` — score 8/10
- Valuation multiples lack as-of date and data source citations.
- Some private company valuations and funding figures may be outdated or imprecise.
- ShipBob is primarily fulfillment, not pure last-mile delivery.
  > 💡 Add data sources, as-of dates, and tighter last-mile focus to strengthen credibility.

### ✅ `9e8607e7…` — score 8/10
- Slide count is 23, below the roughly 30-slide target.
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing completed deliverable insights.
  > 💡 Add several slides on LatAm fintech sub-verticals, exits, and country case studies to reach target length.

### ❌ `c7d83f01…` — score 3/10
- Missing required Python notebook with implemented pricing methodologies.
- No executable code or documented implementations provided.
- Benchmarks and convergence analyses are not demonstrated in deliverables.
  > 💡 Provide a complete, well-documented Python notebook implementing and benchmarking all required methods.

### ✅ `46b34f78…` — score 6/10
- Bond issuers are not named or specifically identified.
- Analysis does not reference or cite provided public data sources.
- Trading recommendations lack concrete trade examples or sizing.
  > 💡 Name specific issuers, cite data sources explicitly, and include concrete trade ideas with sizing.

### ✅ `a1963a68…` — score 7/10
- Future-proofing and sustainability initiatives are not explicitly covered in a dedicated slide.
- Robust data, citations, and referenced public sources are largely absent.
- Regulatory landscape analysis lacks concrete policy actions and timelines.
  > 💡 Add a future-proofing slide with data-backed regulatory, innovation, and sustainability initiatives citing Korean public sources.

### ✅ `b78fd844…` — score 8/10
- Text response lacks substantive analytical summary of findings.
- Inclusion of CONFIDENCE tag is unprofessional.
- Tool-specific mention of LibreOffice is unnecessary.
  > 💡 Include a brief executive summary in the text response and remove extraneous metadata.

### ✅ `4520f882…` — score 7/10
- No evidence the Excel model correctly implements all specific CBA premium and doubling rules.
- Conflict-highlighting logic and validation rules are described but not demonstrated.
- Text response includes an unprofessional confidence tag.
  > 💡 Include a brief walkthrough or screenshots verifying formulas, validations, and CBA compliance logic.

### ✅ `ec591973…` — score 5/10
- Text response restates the task without summarizing actual slide content.
- Slide content cannot be verified against required strategic elements.
- No explicit channel differentiation or investment prioritization is described.
  > 💡 Add a concise slide summary outlining channel strategies, investments, and expected impact.

### ✅ `62f04c2f…` — score 6/10
- Word document omits program benefits and sales impact statements.
- Excel form lacks required freight and restocking fee notice.
- Excel form missing signature and date spaces for sales rep, GM, and Sales Manager.
  > 💡 Add missing benefit content and complete the form footer with required notices and signature sections.

### ✅ `3f821c2d…` — score 5/10
- EOM Inventory and Turn rows are blank with no formulas.
- Omni-level flow table and seasonal turn calculations are missing.
- Ending January omni inventory and 4.0+ turn targets are not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Complete formulas, add an omni summary table, and validate targets before resubmission.

### ✅ `e996036e…` — score 6/10
- Cash flow timing is not calculated, only payment terms are listed.
- Wholesale revenue calculations appear inconsistent with stated shipment retail values.
- Quarterly shipment and marketing allowance timing are not shown.
  > 💡 Add quarterly cash flow schedules and correct wholesale calculations aligned to shipment retail values.

### ❌ `6dcae3f5…` — score 4/10
- Does not identify PGY when each PGY-5 met ACGME key indicator requirements.
- Excel lacks yearly interval data and per-PGY benchmarks across residency.
- ACGME requirement numbers are not included or referenced in the analysis.
  > 💡 Add ACGME requirement table and track when each PGY-5 met requirements with per-PGY benchmarks.

### ✅ `1aecc095…` — score 6/10
- Telehealth Roadmap lacks a Visio-style visual flow and appears text-only.
- Telehealth Workflow does not meet the required two to three page length.
- Roadmap content is minimal and not a clear step-by-step visual sequence.
  > 💡 Add visual flow shapes to the Roadmap and expand the Workflow to full two to three pages.

### ✅ `0353ee0c…` — score 5/10
- PDF is not exhaustive and omits several PACT Act exposure categories.
- Presumptive conditions are summarized vaguely using phrases like "and others."
- Some service locations and eligibility dates lack specific detail from source links.
  > 💡 Revise the PDF to fully enumerate all presumptive exposures, conditions, locations, and dates exactly as listed in Document B.

### ✅ `40a8c4b1…` — score 5/10
- Excel content not verified for column C population and sheet renaming.
- Alternate lab dates and notes section handling not confirmed.
- Unused optional topics highlighting in yellow not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Provide explicit confirmation or preview of the completed Excel schedule meeting all stated constraints.

### ❌ `4d1a8410…` — score 3/10
- Master schedule lacks required detailed table with timings, breaks, lunch, and applicant assignments.
- Applicant itineraries contain placeholder text without individualized times, interviews, or tours.
- Breaks, lunch placement, tours, and physician-specific constraints are not implemented.
  > 💡 Create fully detailed schedules and itineraries matching all timing, break, tour, and physician requirements.

### ✅ `8c823e32…` — score 6/10
- Policy appears incomplete with truncated sections and missing required elements.
- Prohibited uses, training requirements, and tactical team integration are not clearly documented.
- Text response describes intent rather than delivering substantive policy content.
  > 💡 Complete all required sections, expand missing operational guidance, and ensure the PDF contains the full finalized policy.

### ✅ `eb54f575…` — score 8/10
- DOCX file title contains a visible truncation or typo.
- Ballistics section lacks specific cited FBI test data references.
  > 💡 Correct the DOCX title and add brief citations to specific FBI ballistic test results.

### ✅ `11e1b169…` — score 8/10
- KRS 503.090 summary lacks specific statutory elements and deadly force criteria.
- No Kentucky-specific case law or examples are included.
- PDF lacks quick-reference visuals or checklists for field use.
  > 💡 Add brief statutory elements, Kentucky case examples, and visual checklists for faster roll-call reference.

### ✅ `22c0809b…` — score 9/10
- Background check authorization lacks explicit consent language tied to legal compliance.
- Checklist formatting would benefit from visible checkboxes for quicker supervisor use.
  > 💡 Add explicit consent language with signature and convert indicators to checkbox-style fields.

### ❌ `bf68f2ad…` — score 4/10
- Production capacity miscalculated; 30 hours/day is not 60 hours/week.
- Starting cumulative backlog does not match stated 438.81 hours past due.
- Plan never reduces days or overtime to illustrate catch-up transition.
  > 💡 Recalculate capacity correctly and show a phased reduction from six days to regular time once backlog clears.

### ✅ `efca245f…` — score 5/10
- Scenarios show identical production and omit Truck Grill Guard daily production.
- Capacity increases and 10-hour shift assumptions are not reflected after February 5.
- Holidays and required customer ship dates are not clearly modeled in daily plans.
  > 💡 Rebuild scenarios with differentiated assumptions, accurate capacities, grill guard scheduling, holidays, and ship-date validation.

### ✅ `68d8d901…` — score 7/10
- Text response summarizes intent but omits concrete scheduling and throughput details.
- Includes extraneous CONFIDENCE tag not requested in deliverable.
- Excel content cannot be verified from response text alone.
  > 💡 Include a brief summary of key assumptions and calculated throughput from the Excel file.

### ✅ `1752cb53…` — score 6/10
- Completed plan column structure does not match original Week One Test Plan.
- Evidence of meeting changeover and labor rules is not clearly verifiable.
- Staffing assignments lack confirmation against team roster limits.
  > 💡 Align the completed plan exactly to the original template and explicitly validate all planning rules.

### ✅ `bd72994f…` — score 8/10
- PDF lacks visual imagery expected for styled luxury looks.
- Outreach template does not include a short text-message variant.
- PDF does not cite source or confirmation of official lookbook usage.
  > 💡 Add collection imagery and a brief SMS template to strengthen training usefulness.

### ✅ `211d0093…` — score 7/10
- Closing Duties section lacks actual task entries.
- Several tasks are duplicated or placed under incorrect duty sections.
- An extra instructional DOCX file is included instead of only final deliverables.
  > 💡 Populate Closing Duties correctly, remove duplicates, and deliver only finalized PDF and optional editable DOCX.

### ✅ `d4525420…` — score 8/10
- Text response describes deliverable instead of providing the requested paragraph.
- An unnecessary duplicate Evaluation_stocking.xlsx file was produced.
  > 💡 Include the actual 5–7 sentence selection paragraph directly in the text response.

### ✅ `45c6237b…` — score 8/10
- Next Season Assortment imagery is not clearly visible or verifiable as embedded pictures.
  > 💡 Explicitly embed and label vendor images on the Next Season Assortment slide for clarity.

### ✅ `cecac8f9…` — score 7/10
- Uses USD currency despite UK store requirement.
- Promotional offers lack specific details from Marketing Email.
- Launch deck content is very brief for full weekend guidance.
  > 💡 Align all metrics to GBP and expand promotional and execution detail across both PDFs.

### ✅ `8f9e8bcd…` — score 8/10
- Types of Objections lacks a clear example for trust objections.
- Let’s Practice section does not include a trust objection scenario.
  > 💡 Add a trust-based objection example and response to strengthen completeness.

### ✅ `0fad6023…` — score 6/10
- No visible calculation of total inches used versus available space.
- Planogram lacks visual summary totals for quick verification.
- Column headers include an empty unnamed column.
  > 💡 Add automatic total and remaining inches calculations with clearly labeled summary cells.

### ✅ `02314fc6…` — score 8/10
- Checklist lacks signature and date fields for accountability.
- Scoring methodology does not define how N/A items affect totals.
  > 💡 Add manager signatures, inspection date, and clarify scoring rules for N/A items.

### ✅ `4d61a19a…` — score 5/10
- Excel template lacks clear store projection and sign-off fields.
- Template is too minimal and misses merchandising notes and robust historical details.
- PowerPoint content cannot be verified against training requirements.
  > 💡 Expand the Excel template with explicit projection and sign-off sections and ensure the deck clearly walks through each required step.

### ✅ `6436ff9e…` — score 9/10
- Marketing section lacks explicit consent for future promotional contact.
- Optional demographics omit gender and ethnicity questions.
- Rating scales are verbal only, limiting quantitative analysis.
  > 💡 Add optional contact consent, expanded demographics, and numeric rating scales for stronger insights.

### ✅ `8a7b6fca…` — score 6/10
- Process map is overly simplistic and lacks detailed step sequencing.
- Standard visual symbols and swimlane separation are not clearly depicted.
- Failure handling and handoff transitions are insufficiently detailed.
  > 💡 Enhance the PDF with clear symbols, detailed steps, and explicit handoffs across automation and manual lanes.

### ✅ `40a99a31…` — score 6/10
- Camera quantity does not meet minimum six units requirement.
- LIDAR coverage not itemized for six static zones plus one mobile.
- Safety mats not specified for all six CNC machines.
  > 💡 Revise hardware list to explicitly meet required quantities and zone-specific coverage.

### ✅ `b9665ca1…` — score 5/10
- Safety relay pin connections and E-stop series wiring are unclear or potentially incorrect.
- Numerous typos and illegible labels reduce professional and assembly usability.
- Button box parallel wiring and signal labeling requirements are not clearly met.
  > 💡 Revise the schematic for clarity, correct labeling, and strict adherence to the specified safety relay wiring.

### ✅ `c6269101…` — score 7/10
- Text response summarizes intent but lacks explicit findings and conclusions.
- Greatest variability process is not clearly identified in the text.
- Confidence tag is nonstandard for professional deliverables.
  > 💡 Include a concise executive summary with key results, identified highest-variability process, and prioritized actions.

### ✅ `be830ca0…` — score 6/10
- Project goal values appear assumed rather than derived from provided dataset.
- Evidence missing that all analyses strictly use the specified date ranges.
- PowerPoint content cannot be verified against required A3 and charter sections.
  > 💡 Explicitly document data-derived targets, date filters, and include a content checklist mapping slides to requirements.

### ❌ `cd9efc18…` — score 4/10
- PDF is only three pages, not the required eight to eleven pages.
- Execution section lacks specified date, witnesses, notary, and self-proving affidavit.
- Document appears truncated and missing full fiduciary powers and customary Texas clauses.
  > 💡 Expand and complete the will to meet length, execution, and Texas customary provisions requirements.

### ✅ `a97369c7…` — score 7/10
- Delaware Senate Bill 313 is not addressed or analyzed.
- Analysis omits DGCL Section 141(d) charter requirements for director appointment rights.
- Text response uses future tense despite deliverable already produced.
  > 💡 Add explicit analysis of SB 313 and DGCL 141(d) and align the cover text with completed work.

### ✅ `3f625cb2…` — score 8/10
- Limited discussion of specific California statutes beyond CCPA/CPRA.
- Case law section relies mainly on regulatory settlement, not judicial opinions.
  > 💡 Add brief citations to key California statutes and one illustrative court case.

### ✅ `aad21e4c…` — score 6/10
- Capitalization schedule before and after issuance is not included.
- Minority-investor consent rights over extraordinary actions are insufficiently detailed.
- Anti-dilution provision appears incomplete or truncated.
  > 💡 Add a clear capitalization schedule and fully drafted consent and anti-dilution provisions.

### ✅ `8314d1b1…` — score 8/10
- Memo includes duplicate "Re:" lines in the header.
- "From: Counsel" lacks a specific author identification.
  > 💡 Clean up the memo header and identify the authoring firm or attorney.

### ✅ `5e2b6aab…` — score 5/10
- PDFs lack actual engineering drawings, balloons, and visible ANSI B title blocks.
- STEP models are not verified; ZIP contents are not previewed or described.
- Thermal management and overheating prevention are not conceptually addressed.
  > 💡 Include real annotated drawings and validated STEP geometry with a brief thermal concept explanation.

### ❌ `46fc494e…` — score 4/10
- No actual transient calculations or numerical node temperatures are documented.
- Back-face temperature reported as 25 °C is physically unrealistic under stated heating.
- Plots and tables lack traceable data, equations, or model validation details.

### ✅ `3940b7e7…` — score 6/10
- Report lacks required Discussion and Conclusion sections.
- No explicit lift, drag, or force summaries tied to aerodynamic performance.
- Model referenced is SLDASM, not the provided STEP file.
  > 💡 Revise the PDF to include missing sections, aerodynamic force analysis, and confirm STEP-based model usage.

### ✅ `8077e700…` — score 6/10
- Text response summarizes intent, not actual analytical findings.
- No evidence of AISI 1045 hardness graph or results provided.
- PDF content not validated against required report sections.
  > 💡 Include explicit summarized results and verify both steels’ figures and analyses are present.

### ✅ `5a2d70da…` — score 5/10
- Master Tool List lacks required subtotal, sales tax, and grand total rows.
- Manufacturing steps file has malformed headers and minimal operation detail.
- Tool list does not clearly demonstrate staying within the $7,500 budget.
  > 💡 Add proper cost totals with tax, fix manufacturing steps structure, and explicitly verify budget compliance.

### ✅ `74d6e8b0…` — score 6/10
- Guidelines lack specific hormone regimens, dosing ranges, and formulations.
- Evidence citations appear incomplete and not fully detailed.
- Telehealth workflows and laboratory recommendations are minimally specified.
  > 💡 Expand clinical detail with dosing tables, complete references, and clearer virtual care protocols.

### ✅ `81db15ff…` — score 8/10
- Some state scope-of-practice details may be outdated or oversimplified, risking regulatory inaccuracies.
- Recommendation sheet contains an empty first row that appears unintentional.
  > 💡 Validate all state regulatory details against current statutes and clean minor formatting issues before leadership review.

### ✅ `61b0946a…` — score 7/10
- Original task deliverables were not clearly defined or explicitly addressed.
- Proposal references an embedded figure, but image embedding is not verifiable.
- Cadaver sharing logistics and scheduling constraints are insufficiently detailed.
  > 💡 Clarify task requirements and expand operational details, including verified visuals and scheduling workflows.

### ❌ `61e7b9c6…` — score 3/10
- Formulary largely empty and missing most FDA-approved and off-label menopause medications.
- Incorrect generic listed for Bijuva; bazedoxifene combination is Duavee.
- Estimated prices and required medication details are mostly absent.
  > 💡 Populate the spreadsheet fully with accurate drugs, correct generics, and verified one‑month cash prices.

### ✅ `c9bf9801…` — score 8/10
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing completed deliverable.
- Confidence line is unnecessary and unprofessional for final delivery.
- Some guide sections appear brief and could benefit from deeper detail.
  > 💡 Provide a concise summary of finalized content and remove meta statements from the response.

### ❌ `f1be6436…` — score 4/10
- Screenshots are not embedded in the Word document sections.
- Required flight, transport, and registration details are missing or not itemized.
- Total cost breakdown per physician and departmental versus discretionary funding is absent.
  > 💡 Embed screenshots and add complete itemized calculations and funding breakdowns per physician.

### ✅ `41f6ef59…` — score 7/10
- Spreadsheet lacks visible dropdowns or checkboxes for efficient data entry.
- Email template lacks clinic branding or contact information.
  > 💡 Add data validation controls in Excel and include clinic signature details in the email.

### ❌ `6d2c8e55…` — score 4/10
- Several articles are behind paywalls or require logins, violating accessibility requirements.
- Evidence of weekday preference adherence and exact dates is missing from the schedule.
- Room availability file update details are unclear or not verifiable.
  > 💡 Replace restricted-access articles with fully open-access PDFs and clearly document chosen dates, weekdays, and room bookings.

### ✅ `4b98ccce…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes intent instead of confirming completed deliverables.
- Extraneous CONFIDENCE tag included, not requested in deliverable.
- No evidence shown of Excel sign-off with employee name and ID.
  > 💡 Provide confirmation summaries or previews proving all required file contents and signatures are included.

### ✅ `60221cd0…` — score 7/10
- Primary election date is incorrect; Virginia primaries are typically held the second Tuesday in June.
  > 💡 Verify all election dates directly against the Virginia Department of Elections website before publication.

### ✅ `ef8719da…` — score 7/10
- Text response summarizes deliverable instead of presenting pitch content.
- Document preview shows a truncation or typo mid-sentence.
- Hyperlinks and draft timeline are not visible in preview.
  > 💡 Fix truncation, verify hyperlinks and timeline are clearly included, and polish final copy.

### ✅ `3baa0009…` — score 7/10
- Article describes slower growth, not explicitly negative global growth as required.
- Article lacks specific numerical forecast figures for global, US, and China growth.
- Chart content is not verified to show 2024, 2025, and 2027 data.
  > 💡 Revise article to include explicit negative-growth framing and add clear numerical forecasts matching the chart.

### ✅ `6974adea…` — score 6/10
- Text response provides a plan summary instead of the actual article content.
- Article compliance with word count, style guide, and SEO cannot be verified.
- Extraneous CONFIDENCE tag is unprofessional and unnecessary.
  > 💡 Include the full finished article text or a verified excerpt demonstrating requirements are met.

### ✅ `1a78e076…` — score 6/10
- Document appears shorter than the required 10–15 pages.
- Financial impact of hypertension management is insufficiently addressed.
- Reference list completeness and adherence to maximum count are unclear.
  > 💡 Expand the paper to full length and add a clearly cited financial impact section.

### ✅ `1b9ec237…` — score 7/10
- Slide content and accuracy cannot be verified from provided preview.
- Pre-test question and case study presence are not directly confirmed.
- Total slide count and reference formatting are unverified.
  > 💡 Provide a slide outline or screenshots to enable full content verification.

### ✅ `0112fc9b…` — score 8/10
- Subjective section omits past medical, surgical, medication, allergy, and social history details.
- Objective section does not document full cranial nerve assessment or visual acuity.
- Assessment lacks differential diagnoses beyond concussion.
  > 💡 Include comprehensive history elements and expand assessment and objective details for completeness.

### ✅ `772e7524…` — score 7/10
- Text response describes deliverable instead of presenting the SOAP note.
- SOAP note omits detailed ROS, family, social, and immunization histories provided.
- Plan lacks severity assessment or explicit admission criteria discussion.
  > 💡 Include the full SOAP note in the text response and expand history and plan details.

### ✅ `e6429658…` — score 6/10
- AbbVie assistance application appears incomplete and shorter than the full required multi-page form.
- Appeal letter length and full professional structure cannot be verified from preview.
- Generated text response describes actions rather than summarizing completed content.
  > 💡 Ensure the full AbbVie application is completely filled and verify the appeal letter meets 2–4 page requirements.

### ✅ `b5d2e6f1…` — score 6/10
- Data tab is raw detail, not a pivot table as requested.
- Sales by Brand tab does not show a grand total row.
- Sales by Store tab content is not clearly evidenced in the preview.
  > 💡 Convert Data into a pivot table and add explicit grand total rows to both summary tabs.

### ✅ `47ef842d…` — score 8/10
- Active store definition using out-of-stock percentage is not clearly evidenced in the Work sheet.
- Methodology explanation is limited to file descriptions rather than calculation details.
  > 💡 Add a brief methodology note clarifying active store criteria and out-of-stock percentage handling.

### ✅ `1137e2bb…` — score 9/10
- SKU summary is a static table, not an explicit pivot with drill-down controls.
  > 💡 Convert the SKU summary to a pivot table with slicers to enable easier PO-level drill-down.

### ❌ `c3525d4d…` — score 4/10
- Final store count conflicts with provided final matrix, causing incorrect unit and cost calculations.
- Added and removed stores are not identified or highlighted; cross-reference analysis is missing.
- Example store checks (e.g., 4099, 3737) are not addressed anywhere.
  > 💡 Recalculate using the true final matrix, explicitly flag added/removed stores, and update costs accordingly.

### ✅ `9a0d8d36…` — score 5/10
- Slide content cannot be verified due to lack of preview.
- Step-by-step hypothetical calculations are not confirmed.
- Tax treatment of proceeds is not demonstrably shown.
  > 💡 Provide slide previews or a detailed written summary of calculations and tax outcomes.

### ✅ `664a42e5…` — score 6/10
- Text response summarizes intent but does not present actual ILIT content.
- PowerPoint content cannot be verified against required topics.
- No confirmation of 2025 gift tax exclusion figures or Crummey timing details.
  > 💡 Provide a slide-by-slide summary or preview confirming all required ILIT elements are addressed.

### ✅ `feb5eefc…` — score 6/10
- PDF lacks detailed tax calculations and risks for both trusts.
- CRAT mechanics omit payout requirements, term options, and income tax treatment.
- 2015 estate tax exemption figures are not analyzed or applied.
  > 💡 Expand the PDF with deeper tax analysis, CRAT details, and explicit use of 2015 exemption figures.

### ✅ `3600de06…` — score 6/10
- Slide content cannot be verified for required FINRA and NAIC citations.
- Text response summarizes intent rather than confirming actual slide content.
- Confidence score is extraneous and unprofessional for internal deliverable.
  > 💡 Explicitly reference FINRA and NAIC sources on slides and summarize key points in the response.

### ✅ `c657103b…` — score 6/10
- RMDs incorrectly begin at age 72 instead of age 73 under current SECURE rules.
- RMD amounts do not align with IRS 2025 Uniform Lifetime Table factors.
- Tax savings show negative values during conversion years without clear explanation.
  > 💡 Correct RMD age and factors, clarify tax assumptions, and recompute conversion-year tax impacts.

### ✅ `ae0c1093…` — score 8/10
- Observation form preview does not clearly show three solid handwritten lines under each header.
  > 💡 Ensure each observation form section visibly includes three solid horizontal lines for handwritten notes.

### ✅ `f9f82549…` — score 6/10
- Only one PowerPoint provided instead of separate PowerPoint per flowchart header.
- PDF appears as a text list, not a visual flowchart.
- PDF lacks a clear internal document title page.
  > 💡 Create a true visual flowchart PDF and separate PowerPoint files for each flowchart header.

### ✅ `57b2cdf2…` — score 8/10
- Surveillance termination time exceeds the authorized 1:00 a.m. window.
- Some observations include subjective interpretations, such as clothing adjustments.
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing completed work.
  > 💡 Align reported times strictly with authorization and remove subjective descriptions.

### ✅ `84322284…` — score 6/10
- Text response summarizes intent instead of reviewing findings.
- No evidence shown of timeline reconstruction or analysis.
- Confidence tag is extraneous and unprofessional.
  > 💡 Include a concise analytical summary of findings alongside the PDF submission.

### ✅ `a46d5cd2…` — score 8/10
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing investigative findings.
- Photographic evidence integration is not clearly visible in the report preview.
  > 💡 Include a brief executive summary in the text response and clearly caption embedded photographs.

### ✅ `6241e678…` — score 7/10
- Client review periods are not clearly shown as two full days each.
- Specific task durations are not explicitly labeled for all phases.
- Kickoff call date placement is unclear on the calendar.
  > 💡 Add explicit date ranges and durations for each task, especially client review buffers.

### ✅ `e14e32ba…` — score 8/10
- Photos are not embedded; only website links are provided instead of actual images.
- Business hours are vague or incomplete for several restaurants.
- Official website URLs are not clearly labeled as a distinct field.
  > 💡 Embed actual photos, specify exact hours, and add a clearly labeled website field for each deli.

### ✅ `b1a79ce1…` — score 7/10
- Text response uses future tense instead of describing the completed deliverable.
- Moodboard content cannot be verified as including color palette and reference images.
  > 💡 Briefly describe the actual elements shown in the PNG to confirm all requirements are met.

### ✅ `e4f664ea…` — score 5/10
- Text response delivers a promise instead of substantive screenplay content.
- Screenplay content compliance cannot be verified from provided preview.
- Confidence tag is extraneous and unprofessional.
  > 💡 Include verifiable screenplay content or excerpts demonstrating full formatting and narrative compliance.

### ✅ `a079d38f…` — score 7/10
- Setup time is not explicitly accounted for in crew hours.
- Rationale for assuming two shoot days is not clearly documented.
- Video list is not mapped to a detailed shooting schedule.
  > 💡 Add a schedule sheet mapping videos to shoot days with setup time included.

### ✅ `02aa1805…` — score 6/10
- Disconnected Norris City well incorrectly marked as meeting criteria and included in potential wells.
- Emergency backup well should be excluded per active-status screening rule.
- Email does not clearly highlight specific top well IDs as recommended options.
  > 💡 Correct screening logic for active status and update the potential wells tab and email recommendations accordingly.

### ✅ `fd6129bd…` — score 8/10
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing key SOP and form contents.
- An additional working session summary file was included but not requested.
  > 💡 Briefly summarize finalized SOP sections and form fields in the response.

### ✅ `ce864f41…` — score 6/10
- Text response lacks brief written answers to the three required analysis questions.
- No evidence shown that 15% admin time exclusion was applied correctly.
- Excel tracker content is not summarized or validated in the response.
  > 💡 Include explicit answers to the three questions and summarize key calculated results from the workbook.

### ✅ `58ac1cc5…` — score 8/10
- Change control was summarized in a separate PDF instead of completing the provided form.
- The attached Change Control Form appears largely blank and not formally initiated.
  > 💡 Complete and route the official Change Control Form with required fields populated for QA approval.

### ✅ `3c19c6d1…` — score 5/10
- PowerPoint content not evidenced; slide text and structure cannot be verified.
- Slide 3 required exact bullet details and numbering are not demonstrated.
- Slide 4 tabular progress summary is not shown or described clearly.
  > 💡 Include a slide-by-slide content preview or extract to verify all specified requirements are met.

### ✅ `a99d85fc…` — score 6/10
- Scenario color-coding and light-blue editable variable highlighting are not evident.
- Notes section below the Annual Rent Matrix is not clearly present.
- Monthly Rent Matrix total lease value placement is unclear.
  > 💡 Add visible color-coding, clearly labeled Notes, and confirm monthly totals placement and variable highlighting.

### ❌ `55ddb773…` — score 4/10
- Specific violation questions from the attached Violations Questions PDF were not incorporated.
- Violation sections are generic and lack required qualifying questions and details.
- Architectural regulations do not list items from the attached reference.
  > 💡 Extract and explicitly include every violation type and qualifying question from the attached Violations Questions PDF.

### ❌ `1e5a1d7f…` — score 3/10
- The .docx file lacks the required table structure and columns.
- No actual schedule content mapped from PM duties is present.
- Week-of-the-month cyclical focus is not addressed.
  > 💡 Populate the .docx with a complete table detailing tasks by time, activity, tracker, and week.

### ✅ `0419f1c3…` — score 8/10
- Training modules are listed without explicit justification linking each to specific performance gaps.
- The text response summarizes intent rather than describing completed analysis in detail.
  > 💡 Add brief justifications tying each assigned training module directly to the documented performance deficiencies.

### ✅ `ed2bc14c…` — score 8/10
- Email communication section provides concepts but not draft email language.
- Tiered renewal offers lack specific dollar amounts or percentage guidance.
- Community engagement events lack dates and estimated budgets.
  > 💡 Add concrete pricing, draft email text, and simple budgets to strengthen execution readiness.

### ✅ `46bc7238…` — score 7/10
- Outreach cadence and follow-up strategy page is missing.
- Next Steps section is not included in the PDF.
- Cold call and email scripts are overly high-level.
  > 💡 Add a detailed cadence page, a clear Next Steps page, and more specific QSR scripts.

### ✅ `fd3ad420…` — score 6/10
- Commission split percentages are not specified anywhere in the PDF.
- Agent and Associate Broker compensation is not clearly differentiated.
- Compensation Model Ideas terms are referenced but not concretely incorporated.
  > 💡 Add clear percentage splits and explicit agent and associate broker details aligned to the reference model.

### ✅ `0818571f…` — score 6/10
- No evidence properties were sourced from active Crexi or LoopNet listings.
- Photos and maps appear illustrative, not verified listing materials.
- Report contains typos and minor data quality errors.
  > 💡 Cite active listing sources with links and replace illustrative content with verified listing materials.

### ❌ `6074bba3…` — score 3/10
- PDF contains placeholder fields and missing comparable sale and listing data.
- No valuation range, pricing rationale, or completed graphs are provided.
- Lease/occupancy details and required market analysis sections are incomplete.
  > 💡 Populate the template with real comps, pricing analysis, graphs, and remove all placeholders.

### ✅ `5ad0c554…` — score 6/10
- Does not explicitly reference or identify items from the 132 Things REALTORS Do for Buyers list.
- Brochure content does not demonstrate a clear double-sided layout.
- Visual images appear not embedded within the Word brochure.
  > 💡 Add explicit references to specific duties from the 132-item list and embed visuals in a true two-page layout.

### ❌ `11593a50…` — score 3/10
- Properties are in wrong city and ZIP, not Massapequa Park 11762.
- Listings appear fabricated and not verified from MLSLI or real active inventory.
- Required photos and list dates are missing from the property PDF.
  > 💡 Rebuild deliverables using verified MLSLI data for Massapequa Park with real photos and complete fields.

### ✅ `94925f49…` — score 6/10
- Reports lack cited reputable sources for school data and real estate listings.
- Required quantitative metrics like gifted percentage and academic statistics are missing.
- Home listings appear as examples without MLS details or verification.
  > 💡 Add sourced quantitative school metrics and verified MLS-linked listings to fully meet task requirements.

### ✅ `90f37ff3…` — score 7/10
- Comparable rents lack dates or confirmation they are within the past three years.
- Sources for comparable data are not cited or verifiable.
- Subject property address and center name are not specified.
  > 💡 Add dated, sourced comparables and clearly identify the subject property to strengthen credibility.

### ✅ `403b9234…` — score 8/10
- Slide content and count cannot be verified from the provided file preview.
  > 💡 Include a brief slide-by-slide summary in the text response for easier verification.

### ✅ `1bff4551…` — score 5/10
- Includes a non-Black artist song, conflicting with the program’s stated focus.
- Original song lacks a valid YouTube link.
- No evidence most acts are represented in the Institute’s collection.
  > 💡 Replace the non-Black track, add a proper link for the original, and verify collection representation.

### ✅ `650adcb1…` — score 6/10
- Missing sixth tab summarizing intern time-off requests.
- No visible color-coding key included on the first Excel page.
- December 25 requested day off for Adam Blake is not clearly verified.
  > 💡 Add the time-off summary tab and a visible color key, then verify all requested dates are correctly marked.

### ✅ `01d7e53e…` — score 6/10
- Text response summarizes intent instead of presenting substantive agreement content.
- No evidence shown of primary contact details included in the agreement.
- Unable to verify indemnification and self-insurance language within the draft.
  > 💡 Include a brief content summary or excerpt confirming all required clauses are present.

### ✅ `a73fbc98…` — score 6/10
- Product variety adjacency avoidance is not demonstrated or documented.
- Electricity requirements are not clearly mapped to electric-enabled tables.
- Arena table count summary appears inconsistent with provided layout numbering.
  > 💡 Document and validate assignments against product types, electricity availability, and layout capacity.

### ✅ `0ec25916…` — score 5/10
- PDF is two pages, not the required single page.
- DOCX file lacks the full SBAR table content.
- Table structure does not clearly show two columns by four rows.
  > 💡 Condense content into a single-page table and ensure both files contain identical, complete SBAR layouts.

### ✅ `116e791e…` — score 7/10
- PDF is two pages, not one as required.
- Text response promises a one-page PDF but deliverable exceeds length.
  > 💡 Condense formatting to ensure the care plan fits on a single PDF page.

### ✅ `dd724c67…` — score 5/10
- Facility list is incomplete and does not include all Long Island hospitals and rehabilitation facilities.
- Rehabilitation and skilled nursing facilities are largely missing from the contact list.
- TFU condition list may be incomplete relative to the full ACO REACH PY 2025 metric.
  > 💡 Expand the facility list comprehensively and verify all TFU conditions and timeframes against the CMS PY 2025 report.

### ❌ `7151c60a…` — score 4/10
- Fax cover sheet lacks sender/recipient fields, urgency options, and required fax details.
- Pre-screening checklist missing table format, page numbers, and internal staff Date Received/Initials fields.
- Checklist does not include all required patient information elements or two-page structure.
  > 💡 Revise both documents to include all specified fields, tables, logos, and compliance elements exactly as required.

### ❌ `90edba97…` — score 3/10
- Did not enter annual lab results into the tracker as required.
- No monthly treatment or medication changes were documented.
- Task was deferred despite provided Patient Lab Reports.
  > 💡 Complete full lab data entry and document protocol-driven monthly treatment changes per guidelines.

### ✅ `91060ff0…` — score 6/10
- Poster lacks visuals like tables, icons, or product comparisons.
- No references or citations to sources are included.
- Content is text-heavy and minimal for a 36x24 poster.
  > 💡 Add visual elements and a references section to meet educational and professional standards.

### ✅ `8384083a…` — score 6/10
- Calculation formula column is missing despite being a stated requirement.
- Miebo days’ supply calculation appears incorrect for 3 mL with OU QID dosing.
- Miebo NDC/description formatting contains a typographical error.
  > 💡 Add a clear formula column and correct the Miebo entry using standard drops-per-mL assumptions.

### ✅ `045aba2e…` — score 7/10
- Checklists lack specific California law or regulation citations.
- Several key compliance areas are missing, including CURES reporting and HIPAA safeguards.
- Tasks are high-level and may not fully mitigate prior audit risks.
  > 💡 Expand each checklist with specific statutory references and additional high-risk compliance items.

### ❌ `f2986c1f…` — score 3/10
- Medications were not identified from the image as required.
- Spreadsheet contains only placeholder NA values without analysis.
- No Drugs.com verification or MedlinePlus links were provided.
  > 💡 Identify medications from the image using Drugs.com and populate all required spreadsheet fields accurately.

### ✅ `ffed32d8…` — score 6/10
- Comparative table omits required drug cost, vial cost, and reimbursement breakdowns.
- Methodology for annual coverage days is inconsistent and insufficiently explained.
- Summary lacks explicit per-drug cost-effectiveness calculations as requested.
  > 💡 Revise the PDF to include full cost, supply, and reimbursement details per drug with clearer methodology.

### ✅ `a69be28f…` — score 8/10
- Text response summarizes process rather than key regional performance insights.
  > 💡 Add a concise written summary highlighting top fits and notable regional differences.

### ✅ `788d2bc6…` — score 8/10
- Open-source image usage is not documented or credited.
- Visual richness appears limited given the small PDF file size.
- TikTok service coverage is not visible in the provided preview.
  > 💡 Add clearer visuals, image credits, and explicitly showcase TikTok slides in previews.

### ✅ `74ed1dc7…` — score 8/10
- Forecast Bulk is positioned as a rename, not a clearly additive order type.
- Proposal lacks explicit mapping back to each reference-file challenge.
- Text response summarizes intent but not delivered document specifics.
  > 💡 Clarify additive nature of all order types and explicitly tie each to reference challenges.

### ✅ `69a8ef86…` — score 6/10
- Internal process lacks explicit step-by-step actions with owners and timelines.
- Required RA deadlines are not clearly documented in the internal process.
- Internal document content appears incomplete relative to stated objectives.
  > 💡 Add a detailed step-by-step internal RA workflow table including actions, owners, and all required deadlines.

### ✅ `ab81b076…` — score 7/10
- Visual guidance section lacks embedded images or explanatory captions.
- PDF does not show how to communicate discrepancies with the PDC.
- Step-by-step process is brief and omits system confirmation details.
  > 💡 Embed annotated images and expand steps for PDC communication and system confirmation.

### ✅ `d7cfae6f…` — score 5/10
- Text response only describes intent, not completed analysis results.
- Recap content accuracy cannot be verified from provided preview.
- Projection period handling conflicts with stated Q1 2023 requirement.
  > 💡 Include a clear summary of key calculated results and confirm projection timeframe alignment.

### ✅ `105f8ad0…` — score 6/10
- Competitor research sources and brand benchmarks are missing from the model.
- Travel-size SKUs lack competitor averages and recommended MSRPs.
- Rationales are generic and not SKU-specific or data-supported.
  > 💡 Add documented competitor MSRPs by SKU size and complete calculations for all SKUs with specific rationales.

### ✅ `b57efde3…` — score 6/10
- Prospect list is too small to reflect reviewing hundreds of Aqua Nor exhibitors.
- No evidence all listed companies are confirmed on the 2025 Aqua Nor exhibitor list.
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing actual findings and coverage.
  > 💡 Expand the spreadsheet with many more confirmed exhibitors and briefly summarize screening methodology and coverage.

### ✅ `15d37511…` — score 7/10
- TOTAL YEAR 1 GROSS MARGIN value is missing and not calculated.
- Tiered pricing thresholds and discounts are not explicitly shown.
- Spreadsheet lacks clear separation of <1000 vs >1000 pricing tiers.
  > 💡 Add explicit tiered pricing rows and calculate the final total gross margin.

### ✅ `bb863dd9…` — score 6/10
- Quotation sheet lacks clear line-item columns for articles, quantities, prices, lead times, shelf life.
- Requested module quantities are not clearly verifiable from the quotation preview.
- WHO documentation link is not visible in the quotation file.
  > 💡 Revise the Excel quotation with explicit line-item details, confirmed quantities, and an embedded WHO reference link.

### ✅ `fe0d3941…` — score 8/10
- Survey does not specify target sample size or distribution plan.
  > 💡 Add a brief note indicating the survey is intended for 100+ respondents.

### ✅ `6a900a40…` — score 7/10
- Road freight validity is 10 days, conflicting with stated 14–30 day validity range.
- Revised file preview does not clearly show unit price 450 USD per kit.
- Delivery lead time appears as numeric value, not explicit '3 weeks' text.
  > 💡 Verify pricing, lead time wording, and validity statements fully match internal references and transport quotes.

### ✅ `9efbcd35…` — score 6/10
- Document lacks specific MSCI performance figures and clear data attribution.
- Technology sector section contains truncation and an incomplete sentence.
- Regional summaries are qualitative and omit Q1 2025 return statistics.
  > 💡 Add MSCI-sourced Q1 2025 performance data, fix truncation, and include concise quantitative metrics.

### ✅ `1d4672c8…` — score 7/10
- Excel workbook lacks a visible correlation matrix worksheet.
- Analysis is overly brief and lacks structured sections and depth.
- Data sourcing from MSCI website is not documented or cited.
  > 💡 Add a correlation matrix tab, expand the PDF with structured sections, and document MSCI data sourcing.

### ✅ `4de6a529…` — score 5/10
- Change column lacks clear up or down arrows and shows invalid characters.
- Many required sub-asset classes from the provided overview are missing.
- Conviction definition section is incomplete and inconsistently applied.
  > 💡 Complete all required sub-asset classes and use clear arrow indicators for quarter-over-quarter changes.

### ✅ `4c4dc603…` — score 5/10
- Salient numbers like target raise, IRR, token supply, and price per token are missing.
- Key team section lacks named individuals and specific credentials.
- Output references IM 2.0 instead of the attached IM_1.pdf.
  > 💡 Add concrete fund metrics, detailed team profiles, and strictly base content on the provided IM_1.pdf.

### ✅ `bb499d9c…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes intent instead of summarizing actual document content.
- No evidence cited for required external industry best-practice research.
- Confidence tag is nonstandard and unrequested in professional deliverables.
  > 💡 Replace the meta description with a concise executive summary of the actual document contents.

### ✅ `5349dd7b…` — score 7/10
- No sources or citations provided for historical rate increases or current flat rates.
- UPS and FedEx historical increase percentages are identical across all years, raising data accuracy concerns.
- Carrier_Recommendations sheet appears incomplete or truncated in the provided preview.
  > 💡 Add cited data sources, validate carrier-specific rate increases, and ensure the recommendation table is fully populated.

### ✅ `a4a9195c…` — score 7/10
- Document lacks a direct hyperlink to the IPC-A-610G standard.
- Procedures do not cite specific IPC-A-610G sections for alignment.
- ESD controls omit details like humidity limits and monitoring.
  > 💡 Add IPC-A-610G hyperlinks, section citations, and expand ESD control specifics for stronger compliance.

### ✅ `552b7dd0…` — score 7/10
- Text response uses future tense instead of summarizing completed analysis.
- No explicit confirmation of average resolution time split for RMAs versus work orders.
- Summary slide insights and recommendations are not described or evidenced.
  > 💡 Briefly summarize key findings and confirm all required analyses are included in the presentation.

### ❌ `76418a2c…` — score 4/10
- Manifest lacks required fields like pick ticket number and customer name.
- Manifest headers are incorrect and mostly blank, not matching a professional template.
- Savings calculation shows unrounded floating-point values.
  > 💡 Rebuild the manifest with correct headers, populated order details, and properly rounded calculations.

### ❌ `0e386e32…` — score 4/10
- ZIP size is unrealistically small for a full frontend and smart contract codebase.
- No verifiable evidence that required components or integrations are actually implemented.
- Original task requirements are claimed but not demonstrably fulfilled in delivered files.
  > 💡 Provide a complete, inspectable codebase with substantive source files and documented implementations.

### ❌ `7de33b48…` — score 4/10
- ZIP contents are not verifiable and no TSX utility code is shown.
- No evidence of required ARIA22 tests or visible prop behavior implementation.
- README and response describe intent but lack concrete implementation details.
  > 💡 Include and clearly expose the TSX utility and test files demonstrating all WCAG ARIA22 requirements.

### ❌ `4122f866…` — score 3/10
- No Terraform files or Lambda code are shown or verifiable.
- Zip size is implausibly small for required infrastructure and code.
- SES, API Gateway, and reCAPTCHA implementations are not evidenced.
  > 💡 Provide full, inspectable Terraform files, Lambda source code, and README contents.

### ❌ `2c249e0f…` — score 3/10
- OpenAPI 3.0 YAML specification was not produced.
- Only data_flow.txt was delivered; required API file is missing.
- Text response describes intent but lacks actual API content.
  > 💡 Provide a complete OpenAPI 3.0 YAML file covering mission lifecycle, resumable uploads, and processing pipelines.

## Failure Analysis

The dominant hard-failure pattern was brittle spreadsheet/data handling. Eleven of the 13 terminal errors were workbook or tabular-processing tasks, and most failed before any substantive reasoning because the code assumed exact headers or types that were not present. Examples include missing-column KeyErrors for 'Total days' (b7a5912e), 'Branch' (5f6c57dd), 'Request Sent Date' (a0552909), 'Ship Start' (f841ddcf), 'Brand' (19403010), and entire missing expected column sets in 9e39df84 and 11dcc268. Even when headers existed, runtime robustness was weak: 7b08cd4d failed on float-plus-string addition, b39a5aa7 failed on invalid pandas argument usage, and 327fbc21 triggered a 9.95 GiB allocation from an uncontrolled many-to-many merge. These are execution-harness and schema-assumption failures more than domain failures.

By sector and occupation, the errors clustered where tasks were structured, calculation-heavy, and file-transformational rather than narrative. Wholesale Trade produced the largest concentration of terminal errors, especially in Order Clerk and Sales Representative workflows (327fbc21, f841ddcf, 19403010, 7ed932dd), and Finance showed similar instability in Financial Manager Excel tasks (5f6c57dd, b39a5aa7). Manufacturing errors also centered on operational spreadsheets (9e39df84, 11dcc268). In contrast, Government and much of Retail were dominated by prose deliverables, checklists, memos, and policy documents, and they completed far more reliably. The comparison suggests the model is strongest on bounded document synthesis and materially weaker on schema discovery, workbook mutation, and numeric reconciliation.

A second major failure mode was modality mismatch: many tasks were marked successful but delivered plans, summaries, or placeholder artifacts instead of the requested executable media/code/engineering output. Information is the clearest cluster. Audio/video and film-editing tasks frequently omitted the actual WAV or MP4 deliverables and substituted reports or edit plans instead (ff85ee58, 4b894ae3, e222075d, c94452e4, 75401f7c, a941b6d8). Similar patterns appear in software, quant, and engineering tasks where zipped codebases, notebooks, or calculations were missing or unverifiable (0e386e32, 4122f866, 2c249e0f, c7d83f01, 46fc494e). Low-QA real-estate and finance tasks that required live external sourcing showed the same problem in a different form: fabricated or weakly evidenced listings/data rather than verifiable outputs (11593a50, 0818571f, 8079e27d).

Retries improved completion but often did not repair the underlying defect. All 13 terminal errors had already been retried, so generic retry logic was ineffective against schema mismatch, API misuse, or syntax bugs. Among retried successes, several still ended with very low QA because the retry changed packaging rather than substance: 4b894ae3 and a10ec48c both ended at QA 2, c44e9b62 at QA 4, and 6dcae3f5 at QA 4. A cross-sector quality pattern behind many low scores was incomplete finalization: the response stayed in future tense or described intended work instead of showing finished work, often with extra files, truncation, or stray CONFIDENCE metadata (7d7fc9a7, ee09d943, 76d10872, 87da214f). Longer latency did not solve this; some of the slowest tasks were still weak, such as 46fc494e at roughly 56s with QA 4 and c657103b at roughly 59s with QA 6, which reinforces that runtime was mostly a complexity indicator, not a quality driver.

## Recommendations

First, add a mandatory schema-discovery and normalization stage for every spreadsheet-style task before any business logic runs. The code should scan the first several rows for the real header row, trim whitespace, collapse merged/multiline headers, fuzzy-match common synonyms, and print a validated column map before proceeding. Raw ingestion should default to strings, with explicit downstream coercion for dates and numerics. This would likely prevent most terminal errors seen in b7a5912e, 5f6c57dd, a0552909, f841ddcf, 19403010, 7ed932dd, 9e39df84, and 11dcc268. Add merge-cardinality checks and row-count estimates before any outer join so 327fbc21 degrades gracefully instead of exhausting memory, and add type guards before arithmetic so cases like 7b08cd4d fall back to safe coercion rather than crashing.

Second, strengthen the execution harness with preflight validation rather than relying on blind reruns. Generated code should be syntax-checked and lightly linted before execution to catch issues like the unterminated triple-quoted string in 854f3814. Library/API compatibility checks would have caught the invalid pandas usage in b39a5aa7, and safer document-editing utilities would reduce XML/namespace bugs like 5d0feb24. Retries should also become error-specific: when a failure is a missing-column exception, the retry prompt should instruct the model to inspect workbook headers and adapt; when a failure is a merge blow-up, it should force uniqueness checks and aggregation before join; when the issue is document API fragility, it should switch to a simpler supported output path. The current generic retry mechanism rescued some runs, but the 13 retried terminal failures show it is not targeting root causes.

Third, route tasks by modality and environment capability. The weakest 'successful' outputs were concentrated in tasks demanding actual edited audio/video, codebases, notebooks, CAD/CFD analysis, or externally verified public data: ff85ee58, 4b894ae3, c94452e4, 75401f7c, 0e386e32, 4122f866, c7d83f01, 46fc494e, 11593a50, and 8079e27d. These should either be assigned to a toolchain that can truly generate and validate those artifacts or be front-run by a capability-aware prompt that explicitly changes the deliverable contract. If the environment cannot produce a compliant WAV/MP4/STEP/notebook or cannot verify live market/listing data, the system should not let a planning memo pass as full completion; it should return a structured fallback deliverable type and flag the task for alternate routing.

Fourth, tighten QA acceptance on finalization and packaging, not just completion status. A post-generation checker should reject outputs that remain in future tense, fail to summarize the actual file contents, include extra unsolicited files, omit key manifest items, or carry unprofessional metadata like CONFIDENCE tags. That would have intercepted many low-QA 'successes' such as 7d7fc9a7, ee09d943, 76d10872, 87da214f, b78fd844, c9bf9801, 6974adea, and e4f664ea. A practical tuning rule is to force a second-pass finalization prompt whenever predicted QA is below 6, the response lacks evidence of the requested deliverable type, or the delivered file manifest does not exactly match the task. Sector-specific thresholds are also warranted: Information/media and web-sourced Finance/Real Estate tasks should require stronger evidence and stricter validation than Government or Retail document drafting, where the model is already comparatively stable.

## Deliverable Files

- `83d10b06…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `7d7fc9a7…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 7 file(s)
- `43dc9778…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 16 file(s)
- `ee09d943…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 18 file(s)
- `f84ea6ac…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a328feea…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `27e8912c…` (Government): 5 file(s)
- `17111c03…` (Government): 3 file(s)
- `c44e9b62…` (Government): 6 file(s)
- `99ac6944…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `f9a1c16c…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `38889c3b…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `ff85ee58…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `4b894ae3…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `1b1ade2d…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `93b336f3…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `15ddd28d…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `24d1e93f…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `05389f78…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `575f8679…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a74ead3b…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `bbe0a93b…` (Government): 3 file(s)
- `85d95ce5…` (Government): 5 file(s)
- `76d10872…` (Government): 5 file(s)
- `36d567ba…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `7bbfcfe9…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `2696757c…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `dfb4e0cd…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `4c18ebae…` (Government): 3 file(s)
- `cebf301e…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `c2e8f271…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `2ea2e5b5…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 6 file(s)
- `c357f0e2…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `a45bc83b…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 6 file(s)
- `a10ec48c…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `fccaa4a1…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `f5d428fd…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `2fa8e956…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `0e4fe8cd…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `a0ef404e…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `aa071045…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `476db143…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 4 file(s)
- `61f546a8…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 4 file(s)
- `f3351922…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `61717508…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `0ed38524…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `87da214f…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `d025a41c…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `401a07f1…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `afe56d05…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `9a8c8e28…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `3a4c347c…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `ec2fccc9…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `8c8fc328…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `e222075d…` (Information): 6 file(s)
- `c94452e4…` (Information): 5 file(s)
- `75401f7c…` (Information): 4 file(s)
- `a941b6d8…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `8079e27d…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `e21cd746…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `9e8607e7…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `c7d83f01…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `46b34f78…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `a1963a68…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `b78fd844…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `4520f882…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `ec591973…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `62f04c2f…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `3f821c2d…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `e996036e…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `6dcae3f5…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `1aecc095…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 4 file(s)
- `0353ee0c…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `40a8c4b1…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 4 file(s)
- `4d1a8410…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 11 file(s)
- `8c823e32…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `eb54f575…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `11e1b169…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a95a5829…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `22c0809b…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `bf68f2ad…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `efca245f…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `68d8d901…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `1752cb53…` (Manufacturing): 6 file(s)
- `bd72994f…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `211d0093…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `d4525420…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `45c6237b…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `cecac8f9…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `8f9e8bcd…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `0fad6023…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `02314fc6…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `4d61a19a…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `6436ff9e…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `8a7b6fca…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `40a99a31…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `b9665ca1…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `c6269101…` (Manufacturing): 6 file(s)
- `be830ca0…` (Manufacturing): 8 file(s)
- `cd9efc18…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `a97369c7…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `3f625cb2…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `aad21e4c…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `8314d1b1…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `5e2b6aab…` (Manufacturing): 5 file(s)
- `46fc494e…` (Manufacturing): 6 file(s)
- `3940b7e7…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `8077e700…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `5a2d70da…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `74d6e8b0…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `81db15ff…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `61b0946a…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `61e7b9c6…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `c9bf9801…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 5 file(s)
- `f1be6436…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 5 file(s)
- `41f6ef59…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `6d2c8e55…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 7 file(s)
- `4b98ccce…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 7 file(s)
- `60221cd0…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `ef8719da…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `3baa0009…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `6974adea…` (Information): 8 file(s)
- `1a78e076…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `1b9ec237…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `0112fc9b…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `772e7524…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `e6429658…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 4 file(s)
- `b5d2e6f1…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `47ef842d…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `1137e2bb…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `c3525d4d…` (Wholesale Trade): 5 file(s)
- `9a0d8d36…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `664a42e5…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `feb5eefc…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `3600de06…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `c657103b…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `ae0c1093…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `f9f82549…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `57b2cdf2…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `84322284…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `a46d5cd2…` (Retail Trade): 5 file(s)
- `6241e678…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `e14e32ba…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `b1a79ce1…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `e4f664ea…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `a079d38f…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `02aa1805…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `fd6129bd…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 3 file(s)
- `ce864f41…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 4 file(s)
- `58ac1cc5…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 7 file(s)
- `3c19c6d1…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 5 file(s)
- `a99d85fc…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `55ddb773…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `1e5a1d7f…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `0419f1c3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `ed2bc14c…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `46bc7238…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 7 file(s)
- `2d06bc0a…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `fd3ad420…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `0818571f…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 13 file(s)
- `6074bba3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 5 file(s)
- `5ad0c554…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 5 file(s)
- `11593a50…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 4 file(s)
- `94925f49…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 5 file(s)
- `90f37ff3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `d3d255b2…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `403b9234…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `1bff4551…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `650adcb1…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `01d7e53e…` (Government): 4 file(s)
- `a73fbc98…` (Government): 5 file(s)
- `0ec25916…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `116e791e…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `dd724c67…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `7151c60a…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 5 file(s)
- `90edba97…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 7 file(s)
- `91060ff0…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `8384083a…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `045aba2e…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `f2986c1f…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `ffed32d8…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `b3573f20…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `a69be28f…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `788d2bc6…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `74ed1dc7…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `69a8ef86…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `ab81b076…` (Wholesale Trade): 5 file(s)
- `d7cfae6f…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `105f8ad0…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `b57efde3…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `15d37511…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `bb863dd9…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `fe0d3941…` (Wholesale Trade): 4 file(s)
- `6a900a40…` (Wholesale Trade): 6 file(s)
- `9efbcd35…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `1d4672c8…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `4de6a529…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `4c4dc603…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `bb499d9c…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `5349dd7b…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `a4a9195c…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `552b7dd0…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `76418a2c…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `0e386e32…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `7de33b48…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 3 file(s)
- `4122f866…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `2c249e0f…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
