# Experiment Report: GPT-5.4 Reasoning HIGH — Full Benchmark (Ablation 1/4)

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| **Experiment ID** | `exp013_GPT54_reasoning_high` |
| **Condition** | GPT-5.4 reasoning=high + gpt-audio-1.5 preprocessor |
| **Model** | gpt-5.4 |
| **Execution Mode** | subprocess |
| **Date** | 2026-03-27 |
| **Duration** | 721m 42s |
| **Generated At** | 2026-03-27T15:34:44.375983+00:00 |
| 🤗 HF Dataset | [exp013_GPT54_reasoning_high](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp013_GPT54_reasoning_high) |
| 📊 Self-Report | [self_report.json](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp013_GPT54_reasoning_high/blob/main/self_report.json) |
| 📊 Grading | ⏳ Awaiting (`scores.json`) |

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

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

This run evaluated gpt-5.4 in subprocess mode with reasoning set to high and a gpt-audio-1.5 preprocessing stage. Across 220 tasks, the system completed 211 successfully for a 95.9% task completion rate, with 9 terminal errors and 54 retried tasks. Average end-to-end latency was 88,425 ms, indicating a relatively slow but mostly stable execution profile under this configuration.

On LLM-evaluated quality, the average self-assessed confidence score was 6.07/10, with a wide span from 1 to 9. That pattern suggests that successful task completion did not consistently coincide with high internal confidence: most tasks finished, but the model's own quality signal remained moderate overall rather than uniformly strong. The score ceiling of 9 and the low minimum of 1 also indicate meaningful variation in output certainty across the benchmark.

Sector results show several strong completion clusters. Government, Real Estate and Rental and Leasing, and Wholesale Trade each reached 25/25 success, while Retail Trade reached 20/20. Retail had the highest self-assessed confidence at 6.9/10, followed by Government at 6.7/10 and Wholesale at 6.3/10. Lower completion appeared in Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (22/25) and in Finance and Insurance and Manufacturing (23/25 each).

Deliverable file generation quality appears operationally reliable on most completed tasks, but the retry count indicates notable execution friction before final output was produced. In practice, this looks like a system that usually generates the required artifacts, but with uneven LLM-evaluated quality and some dependence on retries to reach a successful final deliverable.

## Key Metrics

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Tasks | 220 |
| Success | 211 (95.9%) |
| Errors | 9 |
| Retried Tasks | 54 |
| Avg QA Score | 6.07/10 |
| Min QA Score | 1/10 |
| Max QA Score | 9/10 |
| Avg Latency | 88,425ms |
| Max Latency | 660,439ms |
| Total LLM Time | 19453s |

## File Generation

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Tasks requiring files | 0 |
| Successfully generated | 0 (0.0%) |
| Failed → dummy created | 0 |

### Resume Rounds

| Round | Attempted | Recovered | Still Failed |
|-------|-----------|-----------|--------------|
| 1 | 39 | 39 | 0 |
| 2 | 15 | 6 | 9 |

## Quality Analysis

The QA profile is centered in the mid range rather than the high range. An average self-assessed confidence of 6.07/10, combined with a minimum of 1 and maximum of 9, points to broad dispersion in perceived output quality. This suggests the model often considered its responses acceptable but not consistently strong, and that a subset of completions likely carried low internal confidence despite being counted as successful.

Sector-level differences are noticeable. Retail Trade produced the strongest LLM-evaluated quality signal at 6.9/10 with full completion, and Government was also comparatively strong at 6.7/10 with 25/25 success. Wholesale Trade combined full completion with above-average QA at 6.3/10. By contrast, Health Care and Social Assistance, Manufacturing, and Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services each averaged 5.7/10, indicating weaker self-assessed confidence even when task completion remained relatively high. Real Estate and Rental and Leasing is a useful contrast case: it achieved 25/25 success but only 5.7/10 average QA, showing that completion rate and perceived answer quality were not tightly coupled.

Latency does not show a positive relationship with LLM-evaluated quality in this run. Finance and Insurance had the highest average latency at 139,071 ms but only a 6.0/10 average QA. Information was also slow at 104,648 ms with 5.9/10 QA, and Manufacturing and Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services were both near 90 seconds with 5.7/10 QA. In contrast, faster sectors such as Wholesale Trade (63,493 ms), Retail Trade (67,035 ms), and Government (75,000 ms) all delivered above-average QA. This pattern suggests longer runtimes likely reflected task or pipeline complexity rather than improved output quality.

No occupation-level breakdown is provided in the summary, so the clearest observations are at the sector level. From a deliverable-generation perspective, sectors with full completion rates appear to have produced files consistently, but lower self-assessed confidence in several of those sectors implies the generated outputs may still require review for completeness, precision, or formatting quality. The combination of moderate QA and 54 retries indicates a benchmark run that was operationally effective overall, yet uneven in confidence and efficiency.

## Sector Breakdown

| Sector | Tasks | Success | Success% | Avg QA | Avg Latency |
|--------|-------|---------|----------|--------|-------------|
| Finance and Insurance | 25 | 23 | 92.0% | 6.04/10 | 139,071ms |
| Government | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 6.72/10 | 75,000ms |
| Health Care and Social Assistance | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 5.71/10 | 83,675ms |
| Information | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 5.88/10 | 104,648ms |
| Manufacturing | 25 | 23 | 92.0% | 5.7/10 | 90,837ms |
| Professional, Scientific, and Technical  | 25 | 22 | 88.0% | 5.73/10 | 89,329ms |
| Real Estate and Rental and Leasing | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 5.72/10 | 78,462ms |
| Retail Trade | 20 | 20 | 100.0% | 6.9/10 | 67,035ms |
| Wholesale Trade | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 6.32/10 | 63,493ms |

## Task Results

| # | Task ID | Sector | Occupation | Status | Retry | Files | QA Score | Latency |
|---|---------|--------|------------|--------|-------|-------|----------|---------|
| 1 | `83d10b06…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 81777ms |
| 2 | `7b08cd4d…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 79458ms |
| 3 | `7d7fc9a7…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 78721ms |
| 4 | `43dc9778…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 131959ms |
| 5 | `ee09d943…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 104465ms |
| 6 | `f84ea6ac…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 1 | 2/10 | 72959ms |
| 7 | `a328feea…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 33673ms |
| 8 | `27e8912c…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 5 | 9/10 | 125197ms |
| 9 | `17111c03…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 61630ms |
| 10 | `c44e9b62…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 100697ms |
| 11 | `99ac6944…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 168665ms |
| 12 | `f9a1c16c…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 4 | 5/10 | 115757ms |
| 13 | `38889c3b…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 7 | 6/10 | 134860ms |
| 14 | `ff85ee58…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 80745ms |
| 15 | `4b894ae3…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 45342ms |
| 16 | `1b1ade2d…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 102812ms |
| 17 | `93b336f3…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 85598ms |
| 18 | `15ddd28d…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 104913ms |
| 19 | `24d1e93f…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 140061ms |
| 20 | `05389f78…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 105685ms |
| 21 | `575f8679…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 79657ms |
| 22 | `a74ead3b…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 7 | 6/10 | 92633ms |
| 23 | `bbe0a93b…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 6 | 7/10 | 95826ms |
| 24 | `85d95ce5…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 111385ms |
| 25 | `76d10872…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 73720ms |
| 26 | `36d567ba…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 41834ms |
| 27 | `7bbfcfe9…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 38612ms |
| 28 | `2696757c…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 36013ms |
| 29 | `dfb4e0cd…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 56170ms |
| 30 | `4c18ebae…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 6/10 | 102734ms |
| 31 | `cebf301e…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 71637ms |
| 32 | `c2e8f271…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 58742ms |
| 33 | `2ea2e5b5…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 62599ms |
| 34 | `c357f0e2…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 95263ms |
| 35 | `a45bc83b…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 95047ms |
| 36 | `a10ec48c…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 86811ms |
| 37 | `fccaa4a1…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 9 | 6/10 | 124841ms |
| 38 | `f5d428fd…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 8 | 5/10 | 96040ms |
| 39 | `2fa8e956…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 102460ms |
| 40 | `0e4fe8cd…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 99498ms |
| 41 | `a0ef404e…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 99977ms |
| 42 | `b7a5912e…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 58748ms |
| 43 | `aa071045…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 6/10 | 60182ms |
| 44 | `476db143…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 79574ms |
| 45 | `61f546a8…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 128954ms |
| 46 | `f3351922…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 65872ms |
| 47 | `61717508…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 130304ms |
| 48 | `0ed38524…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 64550ms |
| 49 | `87da214f…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 6/10 | 64800ms |
| 50 | `d025a41c…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 55734ms |
| 51 | `401a07f1…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 36512ms |
| 52 | `afe56d05…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 9/10 | 99879ms |
| 53 | `9a8c8e28…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 164568ms |
| 54 | `3a4c347c…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 89868ms |
| 55 | `ec2fccc9…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 116441ms |
| 56 | `8c8fc328…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 52507ms |
| 57 | `e222075d…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 18 | 3/10 | 174598ms |
| 58 | `c94452e4…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 11 | 3/10 | 127862ms |
| 59 | `75401f7c…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 6 | 6/10 | 157557ms |
| 60 | `a941b6d8…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | Yes | 6 | 4/10 | 457997ms |
| 61 | `8079e27d…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 1 | 2/10 | 660439ms |
| 62 | `e21cd746…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 6 | 7/10 | 216409ms |
| 63 | `9e8607e7…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 295446ms |
| 64 | `c7d83f01…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 9 | 7/10 | 193582ms |
| 65 | `46b34f78…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 110108ms |
| 66 | `a1963a68…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | Yes | 7 | 6/10 | 129417ms |
| 67 | `5f6c57dd…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 159870ms |
| 68 | `b39a5aa7…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 130594ms |
| 69 | `b78fd844…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 181334ms |
| 70 | `4520f882…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 119512ms |
| 71 | `ec591973…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 34536ms |
| 72 | `62f04c2f…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 31824ms |
| 73 | `3f821c2d…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 4/10 | 109196ms |
| 74 | `e996036e…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 9/10 | 56363ms |
| 75 | `327fbc21…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 61310ms |
| 76 | `6dcae3f5…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 52245ms |
| 77 | `1aecc095…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 44844ms |
| 78 | `0353ee0c…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 2/10 | 54980ms |
| 79 | `40a8c4b1…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 5/10 | 78134ms |
| 80 | `4d1a8410…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 4/10 | 77073ms |
| 81 | `8c823e32…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 121752ms |
| 82 | `eb54f575…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 48114ms |
| 83 | `11e1b169…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 42155ms |
| 84 | `a95a5829…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 94367ms |
| 85 | `22c0809b…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 9/10 | 58206ms |
| 86 | `bf68f2ad…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 84414ms |
| 87 | `efca245f…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 118867ms |
| 88 | `9e39df84…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 5 | 5/10 | 95270ms |
| 89 | `68d8d901…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 127427ms |
| 90 | `1752cb53…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 80972ms |
| 91 | `bd72994f…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 64466ms |
| 92 | `211d0093…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 7/10 | 52311ms |
| 93 | `d4525420…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 48078ms |
| 94 | `45c6237b…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 78707ms |
| 95 | `cecac8f9…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 6 | 7/10 | 134946ms |
| 96 | `8f9e8bcd…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 46695ms |
| 97 | `0fad6023…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 9/10 | 48927ms |
| 98 | `02314fc6…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 9/10 | 79375ms |
| 99 | `4d61a19a…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 83265ms |
| 100 | `6436ff9e…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 45680ms |
| 101 | `8a7b6fca…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 9/10 | 65728ms |
| 102 | `40a99a31…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 96801ms |
| 103 | `b9665ca1…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 103308ms |
| 104 | `c6269101…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 9 | 7/10 | 101312ms |
| 105 | `be830ca0…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 9 | 6/10 | 116503ms |
| 106 | `cd9efc18…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 74465ms |
| 107 | `a97369c7…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 87716ms |
| 108 | `3f625cb2…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 44248ms |
| 109 | `aad21e4c…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 122109ms |
| 110 | `8314d1b1…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 103094ms |
| 111 | `5e2b6aab…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 18 | 6/10 | 160919ms |
| 112 | `46fc494e…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 7 | 4/10 | 78389ms |
| 113 | `3940b7e7…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 62545ms |
| 114 | `8077e700…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 83685ms |
| 115 | `5a2d70da…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 87202ms |
| 116 | `74d6e8b0…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 124068ms |
| 117 | `81db15ff…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 9/10 | 38522ms |
| 118 | `61b0946a…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 68930ms |
| 119 | `61e7b9c6…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 56191ms |
| 120 | `c9bf9801…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 5 | 7/10 | 91669ms |
| 121 | `f1be6436…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 4 | 4/10 | 88933ms |
| 122 | `41f6ef59…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 37868ms |
| 123 | `a0552909…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 68129ms |
| 124 | `6d2c8e55…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | Yes | 11 | 5/10 | 102030ms |
| 125 | `4b98ccce…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 48426ms |
| 126 | `60221cd0…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 24194ms |
| 127 | `ef8719da…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 34694ms |
| 128 | `3baa0009…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 23842ms |
| 129 | `5d0feb24…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 80083ms |
| 130 | `6974adea…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 71214ms |
| 131 | `1a78e076…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 221427ms |
| 132 | `1b9ec237…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 196943ms |
| 133 | `0112fc9b…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 57548ms |
| 134 | `772e7524…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 56071ms |
| 135 | `e6429658…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 132769ms |
| 136 | `b5d2e6f1…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 50241ms |
| 137 | `f841ddcf…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 48768ms |
| 138 | `47ef842d…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 47589ms |
| 139 | `1137e2bb…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 37255ms |
| 140 | `c3525d4d…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 47573ms |
| 141 | `9a0d8d36…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 69329ms |
| 142 | `664a42e5…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 88545ms |
| 143 | `feb5eefc…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 9/10 | 71757ms |
| 144 | `3600de06…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 92119ms |
| 145 | `c657103b…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 70581ms |
| 146 | `ae0c1093…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 49711ms |
| 147 | `f9f82549…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 61045ms |
| 148 | `57b2cdf2…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 8/10 | 53550ms |
| 149 | `84322284…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 65749ms |
| 150 | `a46d5cd2…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 4/10 | 82284ms |
| 151 | `6241e678…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 68063ms |
| 152 | `e14e32ba…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | Yes | 6 | 4/10 | 72146ms |
| 153 | `b1a79ce1…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 109667ms |
| 154 | `e4f664ea…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 58347ms |
| 155 | `a079d38f…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 50793ms |
| 156 | `02aa1805…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 2 | 2/10 | 62557ms |
| 157 | `fd6129bd…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 130460ms |
| 158 | `ce864f41…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 94745ms |
| 159 | `58ac1cc5…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 5 | 7/10 | 90236ms |
| 160 | `3c19c6d1…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 6/10 | 132532ms |
| 161 | `a99d85fc…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 69283ms |
| 162 | `55ddb773…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 67620ms |
| 163 | `1e5a1d7f…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 48268ms |
| 164 | `0419f1c3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 99064ms |
| 165 | `ed2bc14c…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 85484ms |
| 166 | `46bc7238…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | Yes | 7 | 8/10 | 123913ms |
| 167 | `2d06bc0a…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 40629ms |
| 168 | `fd3ad420…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 28190ms |
| 169 | `0818571f…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 6 | 2/10 | 63425ms |
| 170 | `6074bba3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 4 | 2/10 | 63373ms |
| 171 | `5ad0c554…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 72645ms |
| 172 | `11593a50…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 20 | 3/10 | 66369ms |
| 173 | `94925f49…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 6 | 2/10 | 82572ms |
| 174 | `90f37ff3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 70467ms |
| 175 | `d3d255b2…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 43162ms |
| 176 | `403b9234…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 47907ms |
| 177 | `1bff4551…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 74947ms |
| 178 | `650adcb1…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 46731ms |
| 179 | `01d7e53e…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 7/10 | 120958ms |
| 180 | `a73fbc98…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | Yes | 5 | 6/10 | 97130ms |
| 181 | `0ec25916…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 60351ms |
| 182 | `116e791e…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 43965ms |
| 183 | `dd724c67…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 116258ms |
| 184 | `7151c60a…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 74076ms |
| 185 | `90edba97…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 3/10 | 100428ms |
| 186 | `91060ff0…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | Yes | 5 | 8/10 | 105690ms |
| 187 | `8384083a…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 72225ms |
| 188 | `045aba2e…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 6 | 6/10 | 74572ms |
| 189 | `f2986c1f…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 1 | 2/10 | 20336ms |
| 190 | `ffed32d8…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 7/10 | 73097ms |
| 191 | `b3573f20…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 68637ms |
| 192 | `a69be28f…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 86650ms |
| 193 | `788d2bc6…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 143213ms |
| 194 | `74ed1dc7…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 82642ms |
| 195 | `69a8ef86…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 91860ms |
| 196 | `ab81b076…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 4 | 9/10 | 90233ms |
| 197 | `d7cfae6f…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 59326ms |
| 198 | `19403010…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 50229ms |
| 199 | `7ed932dd…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 5/10 | 50773ms |
| 200 | `105f8ad0…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 4/10 | 75301ms |
| 201 | `b57efde3…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 46229ms |
| 202 | `15d37511…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 1/10 | 50644ms |
| 203 | `bb863dd9…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 35731ms |
| 204 | `fe0d3941…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 87088ms |
| 205 | `6a900a40…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 4/10 | 44106ms |
| 206 | `9efbcd35…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 64725ms |
| 207 | `1d4672c8…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 121951ms |
| 208 | `4de6a529…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 89175ms |
| 209 | `4c4dc603…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 4/10 | 73929ms |
| 210 | `bb499d9c…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 156699ms |
| 211 | `5349dd7b…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 60091ms |
| 212 | `a4a9195c…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 44621ms |
| 213 | `552b7dd0…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | Yes | 5 | 6/10 | 73028ms |
| 214 | `11dcc268…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 35937ms |
| 215 | `76418a2c…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 2/10 | 54832ms |
| 216 | `0e386e32…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 4 | 5/10 | 125943ms |
| 217 | `7de33b48…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 41582ms |
| 218 | `854f3814…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 36788ms |
| 219 | `4122f866…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 90244ms |
| 220 | `2c249e0f…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 136832ms |

## QA Issues

### ❌ `83d10b06…` — score 4/10
- Sample tab excludes original Population sheet and is not copied as requested.
- Variance column is blank for some nonzero changes, indicating calculation errors.
- Sample size is 65 but 860 rows were selected without justification.
  > 💡 Include the original Population-based sample correctly and fix variance and sampling logic.

### ✅ `7b08cd4d…` — score 5/10
- P&L summary lacks source-split expense columns and combined totals.
- Expense amounts appear implausible, suggesting mapping or calculation errors.
- No evidence of using multiple source files or currency conversions.
  > 💡 Add Tour Manager, Production Company, and Combined columns in the summary and validate expense mappings.

### ❌ `7d7fc9a7…` — score 3/10
- Prepaid Insurance ending balance does not reconcile to GL.
- Summary shows large insurance variance through April.
- Output evidence lacks confirmation of all required invoice details.
  > 💡 Fix the insurance schedule and ensure all tabs fully reconcile to the provided GL balances.

### ❌ `43dc9778…` — score 4/10
- Return package is a workpaper, not an actual Form 1040 filing.
- Lisa's W-2 was omitted due to illegible values.
- Required schedules listed may be unsupported by provided data.
  > 💡 Produce a completed IRS-form 1040 PDF with only substantiated schedules and resolved missing source data.

### ✅ `ee09d943…` — score 6/10
- Prepared date is 2026, inconsistent with April 2025 package.
- Several tabs retain March names instead of April naming.
- Placeholder tabs indicate missing updates, not fully completed package.
  > 💡 Rename all April tabs consistently and resolve or clearly escalate placeholder schedules before finalizing.

### ❌ `f84ea6ac…` — score 2/10
- Document contains placeholder entries instead of actual researched articles.
- Online research requirement was not completed or verified.
- Output does not fully satisfy the requested final deliverable content.
  > 💡 Replace placeholders with five verified post-2020 public academic articles and their findings.

### ✅ `a328feea…` — score 9/10
- Text response summarizes instead of presenting document details.
- File preview is truncated, limiting full content verification.
  > 💡 Ensure the response briefly confirms the completed file contents and key sections.

### ✅ `27e8912c…` — score 9/10
- Text response promises creation rather than confirming completed deliverables.
- Public-domain image sourcing is not explicitly evidenced in previews.
  > 💡 Confirm completion in the summary and cite image sources within the documents.

### ✅ `17111c03…` — score 6/10
- Memo date conflicts with schedule start year.
- Excel uses blank column headers, reducing accessibility.
- Text response describes deliverables instead of completed results.
  > 💡 Align dates, use proper Excel headers, and summarize the completed files directly.

### ✅ `c44e9b62…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises creation, not completed results.
- Required PDF chart lacks clear visual highlighting of reductions.
- Unexpected DOCX organizational chart suggests deliverable confusion.
  > 💡 State completed outputs and ensure the PDF visibly marks reduced positions.

### ✅ `99ac6944…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises files but omits actual setup, pricing, and links details.
- PDF preview shows truncated accessory list and unclear full cost breakdown.
- Requirement asked for PDF draft content; response mainly describes deliverables.
  > 💡 Include a complete summary in the text response with key gear, prices, totals, and links.

### ✅ `f9a1c16c…` — score 5/10
- PDF has 2 pages, not the required one page.
- SVG file appears suspiciously tiny and likely invalid placeholder content.
- Preview cannot verify required labels, lists, and stage numbering.
  > 💡 Provide a verified single-page PDF with readable labels and complete non-placeholder source files.

### ✅ `38889c3b…` — score 6/10
- Exports are 32-bit float, not requested 24-bit float WAV.
- No evidence the provided drum track is included or used.
- ZIP contents and exact 2:17 duration are unverified.
  > 💡 Deliver requested bit depth, include the drum reference, and verify package contents and duration.

### ❌ `ff85ee58…` — score 4/10
- No evidence the WAV content actually includes the resynced saxophone.
- Report claims sax starts at 00:00, likely contradicting middle-section placement requirement.
- Peak spec is misstated as LUFS instead of dBFS/true peak.
  > 💡 Verify the audio mix content and alignment against the reference, then correct the technical reporting.

### ❌ `4b894ae3…` — score 4/10
- Report claims no edits despite five referenced bass edit spots.
- Extra DOCX deliverable was not requested by the task.
- No evidence bass mistakes were corrected from repeated in-key notes.
  > 💡 Apply and verify the specified bass edits, then deliver only the required final WAV mix.

### ✅ `1b1ade2d…` — score 9/10
- Text response describes files instead of summarizing workflow content.
- Platform workflow details in response are too high-level.
- No explicit mention of price-change approval path in response.
  > 💡 Include a concise workflow summary highlighting change governance and approval routing in the response.

### ✅ `93b336f3…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises creation instead of summarizing completed deliverables.
- Partnership ownership split is invented without support from the task.
- Cost savings appear materially overstated versus provided assembly-only assumptions.
  > 💡 State completed outputs, remove unsupported assumptions, and correct the INR cost model.

### ✅ `15ddd28d…` — score 9/10
- Original text response promised creation rather than summarizing delivered document.
- Task excerpt appears truncated, so full requirement coverage cannot be fully verified.
  > 💡 Ensure the response summarizes key recommendations and confirms all requested sections explicitly.

### ✅ `24d1e93f…` — score 6/10
- Workbook adds an unrequested DOCX file.
- Annual volumes were assumed, not sourced from attachments.
- Recommendation relies on unverified premium feature deliverability.
  > 💡 Use actual attached quotation and volume data only, and keep deliverables strictly requested.

### ✅ `05389f78…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises file review instead of summarizing completed deliverables.
- Report evidence is incomplete because quotation calculations are not shown here.
- Original task requested exact quote-based comparison from attachment.
  > 💡 Verify the report includes explicit INR calculations from the quote file and a clear vendor recommendation.

### ✅ `575f8679…` — score 9/10
- Text response describes intent, not deliverable contents.
- PNG timeline was extra and not requested.
  > 💡 Ensure the summary explicitly confirms all required sections and appendix instruments are included.

### ✅ `a74ead3b…` — score 6/10
- Presentations were not verified against the required manual session content.
- Text admits fallback content if references were unavailable.
- PPTX slide content cannot be confirmed from provided preview.
  > 💡 Open both PPTX files and verify slides match Sessions 13 and 14 exactly.

### ✅ `bbe0a93b…` — score 7/10
- Text admits no open web search, conflicting with task requirement.
- Preview does not confirm resource guide contact details are included.
- Needs assessment appears English-only instructions in Spanish version preview.
  > 💡 Verify all PDFs contain required tables, accurate contacts, and fully translated Spanish content.

### ❌ `85d95ce5…` — score 4/10
- Report uses notes from another student, risking inaccurate identity-specific content.
- First page shows Hartsdale parents, conflicting with JOHN SMITH.
- Response admits source mismatch instead of resolving missing-note requirement.
  > 💡 Verify source documents and regenerate the report using only JOHN SMITH-specific information.

### ✅ `76d10872…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises creation but omits report details and completion confirmation.
- Initial case status appears inconsistent with included paternity results and support order.
- PDF content preview is truncated, preventing full completeness verification.
  > 💡 Provide a concise summary of completed report contents and ensure status aligns with source documents.

### ❌ `36d567ba…` — score 4/10
- Preview shows only introductory paragraphs, not the 11 required questions.
- Cannot verify topics 6-10 cite specific Uniform Guidance sections.
- File appears incomplete for required applicant-facing question set.
  > 💡 Include all 11 two-part questions and cite exact 2 CFR sections for topics 6-10.

### ✅ `2696757c…` — score 5/10
- Output includes an unrequested DOCX file.
- Text response promises a PDF instead of providing substantive content.
- Questions appear generic and may not reflect exact handbook requirements.
  > 💡 Provide only the requested PDF and align each question to the precise cited paragraph language.

### ✅ `dfb4e0cd…` — score 9/10
- Unrequested summary DOCX was produced in addition to the Excel deliverable.
- Percent columns appear as decimals rather than formatted percentages.
  > 💡 Provide only the requested Excel file and format ratio fields as percentages.

### ✅ `4c18ebae…` — score 6/10
- Text promises two deliverables but an extra PNG and PDF were produced.
- Original task details appear truncated, so full requirement coverage is unverified.
- Bluehaven cash deposit total conflicts with overall large-scale cash activity narrative.
  > 💡 Align produced files and narrative precisely to the task and verify all transaction conclusions.

### ✅ `cebf301e…` — score 7/10
- Original task appears truncated, so full requirement coverage is unverified.
- Text response promises a document, not the actual design summary.
- File content preview is truncated, limiting complete content validation.
  > 💡 Provide the full original task and complete file preview for definitive QA.

### ✅ `2ea2e5b5…` — score 6/10
- Original task appears truncated, so full requirement coverage is unverified.
- Output promises analysis but provides no visible data results or conclusions.
- Strategic level classification completeness cannot be confirmed from provided evidence.
  > 💡 Include explicit findings and verify all requested classifications directly in the presentation.

### ✅ `c357f0e2…` — score 6/10
- Template headers were not preserved; columns are blank in preview.
- Actual Result and Tested Date columns are not clearly identifiable.
- Some expected results are ambiguous instead of pass/fail testable.
  > 💡 Preserve exact template headers and make each expected result specific and verifiable.

### ✅ `a45bc83b…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises deliverables but omits actual architecture details.
- Diagram appears simplistic and may not mirror the reference visual style.
- No evidence official GCP icons were used in the PDF.
  > 💡 Include substantive architecture content in the response and verify diagram fidelity and icon compliance.

### ✅ `a10ec48c…` — score 5/10
- Preview shows headings only, not the required table contents.
- Source verification and Google Maps details are not evidenced.
- Response admits best-effort offline data, reducing requirement compliance.
  > 💡 Populate the document with complete restaurant tables and verified source-based details.

### ✅ `fccaa4a1…` — score 6/10
- Requirements header is incorrect; it says requirement, not requirements.
- Photo source attribution is missing or unclear.
- Take Walks details appear paraphrased without clear page-specific sourcing.
  > 💡 Fix the header and add explicit source citations for the operator details and image.

### ✅ `f5d428fd…` — score 5/10
- Images are placeholder concepts, not legitimate royalty-free sourced photos.
- Text promises research sources but provides no actual citations or verified sourcing.
- Dining and activity details appear incomplete or truncated in the PDF preview.
  > 💡 Use real royalty-free photos with source credits and add concise citations for each destination.

### ✅ `2fa8e956…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises a DOCX but provides no substantive winery information.
- Document preview shows truncated address text, suggesting content quality issues.
- Photo sourcing note is ambiguous and may not confirm royalty-free compliance.
  > 💡 Verify the DOCX fully meets all formatting, sourcing, and completeness requirements.

### ✅ `0e4fe8cd…` — score 5/10
- Workbook content appears incomplete beyond June 2 preview.
- Several links are placeholders, not independently researched sources.
- Task requested full return-home logistics, not evidenced here.
  > 💡 Verify all four tabs contain complete researched itineraries with real links and return travel details.

### ❌ `b7a5912e…` — score 4/10
- Text response promises work but omits actual findings and observations.
- Category Breakdown includes a blank vehicle category with major revenue.
- Cleaned source data shows implausible return dates, indicating data handling errors.
  > 💡 Validate source dates/categories and summarize actual report insights in the response.

### ✅ `aa071045…` — score 6/10
- Service form preview omits key fields like customer, agreement, plate, and mileage.
- Excel preview lacks visible operational conclusions required by the task.
- Extra PNG files were produced though not requested as deliverables.
  > 💡 Include all required service form fields and a clear conclusions section in the workbook.

### ❌ `61f546a8…` — score 4/10
- Output includes an unrequested DOCX file.
- Make-ready dates are changed earlier, which is likely incorrect.
- Report omits source-based scheduling justification and validation details.
  > 💡 Provide only the PDF and verify all revised dates against the reference schedules and rules.

### ✅ `f3351922…` — score 7/10
- Text response describes deliverables instead of providing the requested email.
- XLSX spreadsheet was unnecessary and not requested.
- Preview suggests possible truncation or incomplete L Fund explanation.
  > 💡 Provide the full email text directly and ensure all fund sections are complete.

### ✅ `61717508…` — score 6/10
- Training deck content was not provided for inspection.
- Role-play PDF is only 4 pages, limiting depth and variety.
- Text response promises content instead of confirming completed deliverables.
  > 💡 Provide full file previews and ensure both PDFs clearly meet all requested content requirements.

### ✅ `0ed38524…` — score 6/10
- Summary preview lacks district-by-district details for all four districts.
- An extra PNG file was produced beyond requested PDF deliverables.
- Text response describes intended work, not completed results.
  > 💡 Ensure the summary PDF clearly covers each district and report completed outputs only.

### ✅ `87da214f…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises analysis but provides no actual findings or figures.
- PPTX content cannot be verified from preview for required slides and calculations.
- No evidence claims were assessed against attached policy parameters.
  > 💡 Include concrete findings, amounts, percentages, and verifiable slide content summary in the response.

### ✅ `d025a41c…` — score 7/10
- Text response only describes deliverable instead of presenting findings.
- File content preview is truncated, preventing full verification.
- No evidence the three attached chat logs were specifically analyzed.
  > 💡 Provide the actual case-specific findings in the response and ensure the document fully reflects all source chats.

### ✅ `401a07f1…` — score 7/10
- Text response describes intent instead of delivered editorial content.
- Preview shows no visible reference links despite requirement for linked stories.
- Guardian style compliance is not demonstrated or verifiable.
  > 💡 Summarize the completed deliverable accurately and ensure visible, verifiable source links in the document.

### ✅ `afe56d05…` — score 9/10
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing completed deliverable.
- File preview is truncated, limiting full verification of all sections and links.
  > 💡 Ensure the text response confirms completion and briefly summarizes the document's final contents.

### ✅ `9a8c8e28…` — score 7/10
- Text response only summarizes deliverables instead of presenting substantive content.
- Guide appears truncated and may omit full bibliography or detailed legal coverage.
- No evidence the quiz answer key and scoring guide are complete.
  > 💡 Verify each PDF fully includes all required sections, examples, bibliography, and quiz scoring details.

### ✅ `3a4c347c…` — score 7/10
- Budget exceeds requested £20,000-£25,000 estimate.
- No evidence the document stays within six pages.
- Only one produced file; reference-file use not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Align budget to the stated range and confirm page count and boilerplate integration explicitly.

### ❌ `ec2fccc9…` — score 4/10
- Text response describes intent, not completed deliverable details.
- Preview shows no visible artist links or cited news anchors.
- Secondary keywords and pull-quote caption are not evidenced.
  > 💡 Verify the document includes all required links, keywords, and the pull-quote caption.

### ✅ `8c8fc328…` — score 6/10
- File preview is truncated, preventing full content verification.
- Output claims reference alignment without proving page-two sequence coverage.
- Text response describes intent, not completed deliverable details.
  > 💡 Provide full script content and explicitly map each reference sequence to timestamps.

### ❌ `e222075d…` — score 3/10
- Used placeholder slides instead of real stock preview footage.
- Asset log lacks direct links and music selection details.
- Deliverable includes planning documents beyond requested final edit.
  > 💡 Provide a true 30-second edit using sourced watermarked stock clips with complete direct-link logging.

### ❌ `c94452e4…` — score 3/10
- Final required 15-second H.264 MP4 was not produced.
- Stock footage and music sources were not actually found or listed.
- Output substitutes planning documents for the requested finished commercial.
  > 💡 Deliver the actual 1920x1080 15-second MP4 with sourced media and final supers.

### ✅ `75401f7c…` — score 6/10
- Output includes extra files not requested by the task.
- Preview does not verify required sound effects were actually placed.
- Text response is conditional despite claiming render succeeded.
  > 💡 Provide direct confirmation of final reel specs, duration, and exact required audio placements.

### ❌ `a941b6d8…` — score 4/10
- Output is a preview, not a finished professional composite.
- Required smoke stock footage was not sourced or added.
- Codec matching and seamless tracked perspective are not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Deliver a final-quality composite matching source specs with tracked window insert, flash, and smoke.

### ❌ `8079e27d…` — score 2/10
- Workbook contains sample placeholders, not all 500 S&P companies.
- Required valuation and market data fields are largely blank.
- Subsector summary is incomplete and not based on real web data.
  > 💡 Populate the workbook with all S&P 500 constituents and complete live-sourced metrics.

### ✅ `e21cd746…` — score 7/10
- Private target list includes Roadie, no longer a private target after UPS acquisition.
- Slides state figures are illustrative, weakening client-ready valuation credibility.
- No evidence public comps tables show actual Revenue, EBITDA, and P/E multiples.
  > 💡 Replace acquired/non-private names and use sourced, non-illustrative valuation data throughout.

### ✅ `c7d83f01…` — score 7/10
- Notebook content was not previewed, so implementation completeness is unverified.
- Finite-difference and Monte Carlo visual evidence is only partially confirmed.
- Extra DOCX/PDF variants exceed requested deliverables without clear necessity.
  > 💡 Verify the notebook fully implements and compares all methods with documented code and plots.

### ✅ `46b34f78…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises deliverables instead of summarizing completed analysis.
- Supporting data uses synthetic framework, risking noncompliance with public-source requirement.
- No evidence memo fully covers issuer analysis and actionable H1 2025 strategies.
  > 💡 Provide a substantive summary and verify the .docx contains all required sections with cited public data.

### ✅ `a1963a68…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises deliverables instead of summarizing completed strategic content.
- PDF preview shows visible text corruption and formatting errors.
- Evidence of robust sourcing and required public-report analysis is not clearly demonstrated.
  > 💡 Provide a polished content summary with explicit sources and fix PDF formatting artifacts.

### ✅ `5f6c57dd…` — score 6/10
- Workbook has six tabs, not the required five worksheets.
- Income statement preview shows blank result cells, suggesting formulas or links failed.
- Regional view may be incorrect because Lists includes unsupported region Corporate.
  > 💡 Verify populated formulas, exact worksheet requirements, and region mapping against source data.

### ❌ `b39a5aa7…` — score 4/10
- Summary sheet values appear blank in preview.
- No evidence of quarterly projections or Y/Y growth output.
- Assumptions tab remains source notes, not clear ad hoc drivers.
  > 💡 Populate formulas and outputs clearly for current year, two-year projections, and audit tabs.

### ✅ `b78fd844…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises deliverables instead of summarizing completed analysis.
- No evidence the response used attached project details explicitly.
- Supporting PNG/XLSX files were unnecessary to the stated task.
  > 💡 Provide a concise findings summary in the text response and tie conclusions directly to source project data.

### ✅ `4520f882…` — score 7/10
- CBA coverage may be incomplete due to partial excerpt assumptions.
- Validation logic details are not evidenced from the preview.
- Readme was not requested and may be unnecessary.
  > 💡 Verify all CBA payroll categories and validation rules directly against the excerpt.

### ❌ `ec591973…` — score 4/10
- Text describes intent, not the actual slide content.
- PPTX content cannot be verified from the provided preview.
- No evidence the slide is concise, executive-level, and one-page.
  > 💡 Provide a slide preview or extract to verify requirements and file content.

### ✅ `62f04c2f…` — score 9/10
- Text response describes files instead of summarizing completed deliverables.
- Excel preview does not confirm signature labels and policy note placement.
  > 💡 Include a concise completion summary and verify all required form labels are visibly present.

### ❌ `3f821c2d…` — score 4/10
- Workbook omits populated omni and last-year comparison data.
- Key formula rows appear blank in preview, suggesting incomplete calculations.
- Text claims constraints met without showing validated results.
  > 💡 Populate all sections with working formulas and explicit target attainment results.

### ✅ `e996036e…` — score 9/10
- Cash flow timing lacks quarter-by-quarter detail by scenario.
- Executive summary appears truncated in preview, risking incomplete paragraph.
  > 💡 Include a dedicated quarterly cash collection table and verify the full summary paragraph is visible.

### ✅ `327fbc21…` — score 6/10
- Comparable store plan misses the -15% topside target materially.
- Summary includes unnecessary deliverables text instead of only requested summary.
- Workbook preview does not show required total rollup lines clearly.
  > 💡 Tighten comp planning to target -15% and clearly present total, closed, and comp rollups.

### ❌ `6dcae3f5…` — score 4/10
- Output added an unrequested Word document.
- Workbook preview omits current residents and deficiency highlighting evidence.
- Second required table appears truncated or incomplete in the task response.
  > 💡 Provide only the required Excel file and ensure all requested sheets and analyses are fully included.

### ✅ `1aecc095…` — score 7/10
- Text response promises deliverables instead of summarizing completed content.
- Roadmap preview appears too sparse for a one-page visual workflow.
- Email content preview is missing, so requirement compliance is unverified.
  > 💡 Include fuller content evidence and ensure the response reflects completed deliverables, not intentions.

### ❌ `0353ee0c…` — score 2/10
- PDF contains placeholders instead of exhaustive compiled presumptive lists.
- Output admits source links were not reviewed as required.
- DOCX was produced though the task specifically requested a PDF document.
  > 💡 Access all 19 links and replace placeholders with a complete consolidated PDF.

### ✅ `40a8c4b1…` — score 5/10
- No evidence unused optional topics were highlighted in yellow.
- MS4 Talks are not visible in the schedule preview.
- Workbook content may not reflect all scheduling priorities and conditions.
  > 💡 Verify formatting, include required MS4 talks, and confirm all source constraints were applied.

### ❌ `4d1a8410…` — score 4/10
- Files appear mostly headings, lacking detailed tables and applicant assignments.
- Response promises three documents though task requested two deliverables.
- Itineraries mention photo and logos, unsupported by file previews.
  > 💡 Include complete schedule tables and fully populated one-page itineraries matching all stated requirements.

### ✅ `8c823e32…` — score 7/10
- Text response describes intent, not the completed policy content.
- PDF content was not previewed, so final file completeness is unverified.
- Drafting note suggests internal review status, not final ready policy.
  > 💡 Provide the actual finalized policy text and verify the PDF matches all required sections.

### ✅ `eb54f575…` — score 9/10
- Text response summarizes intent instead of the actual report findings.
- PDF content was not previewed, so final file content is unverified.
  > 💡 Include key recommendations in the text response and verify the PDF content directly.

### ✅ `11e1b169…` — score 7/10
- Text response promises Python code, but none is listed as produced.
- PDF preview shows truncation/formatting artifact on page break.
- Content appears summary-level and may omit full KRS 503.090 specifics.
  > 💡 Ensure all promised files are delivered and verify clean PDF formatting with complete statute coverage.

### ✅ `a95a5829…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes deliverables instead of providing policy content.
- DOCX content is not shown, so required sections cannot be verified.
- Instruction sheet preview appears truncated with incomplete wording.
  > 💡 Include the full general order text in the DOCX and verify all required sections and approvals.

### ✅ `22c0809b…` — score 9/10
- Text response promises files rather than summarizing completed deliverable.
- PDF content was not previewed, limiting direct verification.
  > 💡 Include a concise completion summary and provide previewable PDF text for verification.

### ✅ `bf68f2ad…` — score 6/10
- Text promised email summary, but only a Word document was produced.
- Workbook lacks clear proof of exact source sheet values beyond extracted demand.
- Response says it will create files, not that task was completed.
  > 💡 Provide the brief email-ready summary in the response and confirm the workbook fully uses source data.

### ❌ `efca245f…` — score 4/10
- Output promised attached-PO basis, but no attached PO listing is evidenced.
- Task requested three scenarios; summary text omits scenario implications details.
- Extra DOCX was produced though task specified an Excel spreadsheet document.
  > 💡 Ensure the workbook alone fully contains all three scenarios and their implications using source PO data.

### ✅ `9e39df84…` — score 5/10
- Average Output and Total Output cells are blank, not automatically calculated.
- Workbook includes an extra Lists sheet beyond the required two worksheets.
- Dashboard uses static tables, not PivotTables with week-range filtering.
  > 💡 Add formulas and real PivotTables with slicers or validated week-range controls, and remove extra sheet.

### ✅ `68d8d901…` — score 6/10
- Workbook content appears assumption-based without reference-file validation.
- Work Schedule lacks clear full-batch output math across four weeks.
- Production assignments may not reflect exact referenced personnel duties.
  > 💡 Verify all workbook data against the reference files and show explicit batch-capacity calculations.

### ✅ `bd72994f…` — score 6/10
- Collection content is explicitly a sample, not verified from the official 2025 resort collection.
- Task requested official website or lookbook exploration, which was not completed.
- Presentation content preview appears generic and may not reflect authentic branded looks.
  > 💡 Use verified official collection looks and cite the exact source in the deliverables.

### ✅ `211d0093…` — score 7/10
- Manager sign-off is requested per task, not only at the end.
- Task list includes awkward shift recap under opening duties.
- Output claims exact Word extraction, but source matching is unverified.
  > 💡 Ensure tasks exactly match the source document and keep only the final manager sign-off.

### ✅ `d4525420…` — score 6/10
- Text response is a plan, not the required selection paragraph.
- Extra Excel file was produced though not requested.
- Selection rationale conflicts with stronger leadership notes for another candidate.
  > 💡 Provide the actual 5–7 sentence recommendation in the text response and align it to the data.

### ✅ `45c6237b…` — score 6/10
- Final summary table slide is not evidenced in the preview.
- Next Season Assortment subtitle and images are not clearly evidenced.
- Shirt size mix appears rounded, not exactly 72/28 by SKU.
  > 💡 Verify the final slide, next-season image section, and size-allocation compliance in the files.

### ✅ `cecac8f9…` — score 7/10
- Preparation plan content is not previewed, so requirement coverage is unverified.
- Deck shows dollar currency, not UK-appropriate pounds.
- Reference-based promotional details appear generic, not clearly sourced from attachments.
  > 💡 Verify both PDFs fully, use GBP, and explicitly reflect attachment targets and offers.

### ✅ `02314fc6…` — score 9/10
- Text response describes deliverable rather than presenting checklist content directly.
  > 💡 Include a brief summary of total checklist sections and scoring in the response.

### ✅ `4d61a19a…` — score 9/10
- Text response says sample tab, but separate PNG file was also produced.
  > 💡 Ensure the text response explicitly mentions all produced files and their purpose.

### ✅ `6436ff9e…` — score 6/10
- Preview omits many actual form fields and response scales.
- Student information section appears incomplete beyond first-time attendance.
- Marketing effectiveness data is limited to discovery source only.
  > 💡 Ensure the document includes complete fields, rating scales, and actionable outreach questions.

### ✅ `40a99a31…` — score 6/10
- Text promises deliverables but omits actual hardware selections and justification.
- Report preview appears truncated and may contain formatting/content errors.
- Extra DOCX file included though not requested.
  > 💡 Include complete hardware details in the response and verify all required files are fully populated.

### ✅ `b9665ca1…` — score 6/10
- Output promises Visio/AutoCAD source, but only PDF, SVG, and DOCX were produced.
- Several required wire labels appear incorrect or garbled in the schematic preview.
- Stop button parallel wiring details and labels seem incomplete or inconsistent.
  > 💡 Provide the exact required source drawing format and correct all wire labels and operator wiring details.

### ✅ `c6269101…` — score 7/10
- No evidence the PowerPoint content was verified against all requested analyses.
- Capability conclusions may be weak without explicit specification limits or thresholds.
- Preview shows truncated workbook details, limiting file-content validation.
  > 💡 Verify the deck explicitly includes findings, stability diagnostics, greatest-variability deep dive, and actionable recommendations.

### ✅ `be830ca0…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises deliverables but omits actual analysis findings.
- No preview confirms the PowerPoint contains required charter, A3, and timeline content.
- Reference file Processing Data.xlsx is not listed or explicitly validated as source.
  > 💡 Verify slide content and summarize key statistical conclusions in the response.

### ✅ `cd9efc18…` — score 5/10
- PDF is only 6 pages, below the requested 8 to 11 pages.
- Text response promises creation but does not present the drafted will content.
- Preview suggests truncated or incomplete beneficiary clause content.
  > 💡 Provide a complete 8 to 11 page Texas will and ensure all clauses are fully included.

### ✅ `a97369c7…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes future work instead of delivering the memo.
- Source workbook has an incorrect Senate Bill 313 URL.
- Extra XLSX file was unnecessary under the task.
  > 💡 Return a direct memo summary and verify all cited authority links.

### ✅ `3f625cb2…` — score 9/10
- Text response promises creation, not completed findings.
- PDF preview is truncated, limiting full content verification.
  > 💡 Provide a concise summary of conclusions in the text response.

### ✅ `aad21e4c…` — score 6/10
- No evidence the DOCX includes the required capitalization schedule.
- Anti-dilution floor may conflict with pre-emptive rights and exempt issuance carve-outs.
- Text response promises creation only, not substantive completion details.
  > 💡 Verify the DOCX expressly includes all requested investor rights and a before-and-after cap table schedule.

### ✅ `8314d1b1…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises creation, not completed work summary.
- Memo date is March 27, 2026, not tied to requested March 2025 amendments timing.
- Preview shows truncated statutory discussion; completeness cannot be confirmed.
  > 💡 Summarize completed deliverables and clearly confirm full analysis of the 2025 DGCL amendments.

### ✅ `5e2b6aab…` — score 6/10
- Text promises placeholder STEP geometry, not proper CAD models.
- Required assembly and subassembly PDFs appear incomplete or limited.
- Extra deliverables added while some requested content remains uncertain.
  > 💡 Provide fully modeled STEP CAD and complete all required assembly and subassembly drawing PDFs.

### ❌ `46fc494e…` — score 4/10
- Text response lists deliverables but omits calculated temperatures and conclusion.
- Back-face temperature table and 150°C margin assessment are not evidenced.
- Model setup appears inconsistent with a 22-node in-plane conduction description.
  > 💡 Include explicit numerical results, back-face limit verdict, and a clear mapping of the 22-node model.

### ❌ `3940b7e7…` — score 3/10
- Report uses placeholders and pending extraction instead of actual CFD values.
- Required numerical tables and key metrics are not evidenced in preview.
- Simulation details are qualitative, missing exact mesh and boundary conditions.
  > 💡 Provide the actual extracted CFD data and complete all required report tables and parameters.

### ✅ `5a2d70da…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises creation but omits actual manufacturing details and budget summary.
- Master tool list uses estimated links/parts without verified sourcing or exact pricing evidence.
- Manufacturing steps file lacks clear operation details tied to drawing features.
  > 💡 Include explicit process steps, verified purchasable items with tax totals, and concise summary in text.

### ✅ `74d6e8b0…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes deliverables instead of summarizing completed guideline content.
- No evidence the Word document contains detailed prescribing guidance and citations.
- Reference workbook appears limited and may not support comprehensive standards.
  > 💡 Include a substantive summary and verify the DOCX contains complete evidence-based prescribing guidelines with citations.

### ✅ `81db15ff…` — score 9/10
- Text response promises creation instead of summarizing completed findings.
- Some supervision entries are vague rather than definitive numeric limits.
  > 💡 Summarize the actual recommendation in the text and clarify any non-numeric supervision rules.

### ✅ `61b0946a…` — score 6/10
- Output promises a DOCX but produced a PDF too without justification.
- Original task details appear truncated, so full requirement coverage is unverified.
- Proposal assumes one shared annual package without clear capacity proof.
  > 💡 Align produced files exactly to requested deliverables and justify operational assumptions with calculations.

### ✅ `61e7b9c6…` — score 6/10
- Prices were not obtained from online pharmacies as required.
- An extra methodology DOCX was produced instead of only the spreadsheet.
- Workbook includes an empty Sheet2, suggesting incomplete cleanup.
  > 💡 Use live online pharmacy pricing, remove extraneous files/sheets, and finalize the template workbook only.

### ✅ `c9bf9801…` — score 7/10
- Guide links separate templates are not verified in preview.
- Required separate mentor and mentee applications were combined into one file.
- Separate 4-month and 8-month evaluations were combined into one file.
  > 💡 Create distinct application and evaluation documents and ensure the guide hyperlinks each template.

### ❌ `f1be6436…` — score 4/10
- Document uses placeholder evidence instead of required live screenshots.
- Travel section omits source screenshots for each physician's flight details.
- Lodging uses a July proxy, not conference-date pricing.
  > 💡 Use live dated sources and embed actual screenshots for registration, flights, rides, and conference-date lodging.

### ✅ `41f6ef59…` — score 7/10
- Spreadsheet has extra blank and Instructions columns beyond requested tracking fields.
- Workbook includes many instructional rows instead of a simple tracking sheet.
- Checkboxes were not used; status fields appear as dropdown yes/no only.
  > 💡 Remove extra columns and filler rows, and use actual checkboxes or clearly validated status fields only.

### ✅ `6d2c8e55…` — score 5/10
- Article PDFs are citation summaries, not the required full articles or saved webpages.
- Accessibility and paywall-free status were not verified for all selected articles.
- Schedule details and room/date compliance are not evidenced in the response preview.
  > 💡 Provide verified full-text article files and explicitly document compliant dates, rooms, and exclusions.

### ✅ `4b98ccce…` — score 5/10
- EMR TRANSFER PATIENTS includes deceased patients instead of separating them.
- Workbook preview shows no visible signed name and employee ID lines.
- File content for letters is unverified against required template and HIPAA clauses.
  > 💡 Exclude deceased patients from the EMR tab and verify signatures and letter content.

### ❌ `ef8719da…` — score 4/10
- Text response describes a file instead of delivering the requested pitch.
- Output omits required pitch details in the visible response.
- File preview appears truncated, leaving completeness unverified.
  > 💡 Return the full editor-ready pitch directly and ensure every required element is explicitly included.

### ✅ `3baa0009…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes deliverables instead of providing the article.
- Article omits specific U.S. and China forecast figures.
- Chart year appears wrong; task requested 2024, 2025, and 2027.
  > 💡 Provide the full article in the response and include exact U.S., China, and charted forecast values.

### ✅ `5d0feb24…` — score 6/10
- Output describes creating a review, not the actual feedback itself.
- No evidence the attached draft was reproduced with line-by-line edits.
- Supporting source links appear incomplete or inconsistently specified.
  > 💡 Include explicit, source-linked edits addressing the paper’s novelty, accuracy, and the reporter draft text.

### ✅ `6974adea…` — score 7/10
- Text response describes intent rather than the completed article.
- Preview shows truncation risk, so full content compliance is unverified.
- No evidence of explicit Guardian style guide adherence.
  > 💡 Return the finished article text in the response and confirm key requirements were met.

### ✅ `1a78e076…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises files instead of summarizing completed review findings.
- Preview lacks clear verification of age-group variation, morbidity, mortality, and financial impact coverage.
- Excel and PNG were not requested and may distract from core deliverable quality.
  > 💡 Provide a concise results summary in the response and ensure all required review elements are explicit.

### ✅ `1b9ec237…` — score 6/10
- PPTX content was not verifiable from the provided preview.
- Speaker notes, slide count, and references formatting are unconfirmed.
- AHA stages and case study inclusion cannot be confirmed.
  > 💡 Open the PPTX and verify all required slides, notes, and references are present.

### ❌ `0112fc9b…` — score 4/10
- Text response did not provide the requested SOAP note content.
- Assessment and plan details appear truncated or incomplete in preview.
- Deliverable adds file promises instead of directly answering the task.
  > 💡 Provide the full SOAP note in the text response and ensure complete assessment and plan.

### ✅ `772e7524…` — score 9/10
- Text response promised files instead of directly providing the SOAP note.
- Assessment and plan details are not fully visible in preview.
  > 💡 Provide the full SOAP note in the text response and ensure all sections are clearly complete.

### ✅ `e6429658…` — score 6/10
- Appeal letter content was not provided for verification.
- Application appears incomplete with illegible insurance fields left blank.
- Extra reference image file was produced beyond requested deliverables.
  > 💡 Provide the full appeal letter text and verify all possible application fields are completed accurately.

### ✅ `b5d2e6f1…` — score 7/10
- Sales by Store sheet preview is missing, so required tab is unverified.
- Output claims pivot tables, but preview does not confirm actual pivot tables.
- Brand totals preview appears truncated, limiting grand total verification.
  > 💡 Verify the Sales by Store tab, pivot table structure, and grand totals in the workbook.

### ✅ `f841ddcf…` — score 7/10
- Workbook lacks visible filterable Excel tables by account.
- Summary sheet formatting is messy with blank rows and generic headers.
- Numeric fields are unformatted decimals instead of clean percentages and currency.
  > 💡 Convert summaries to proper Excel tables with filters and apply clear currency and percent formatting.

### ✅ `1137e2bb…` — score 8/10
- Word summary omits actual highest-frequency SKUs under that heading.
- No evidence the summary table is a true pivot with drill-down functionality.
- Text response is descriptive, not a concise results summary.
  > 💡 Include named top SKUs and ensure the Excel summary is an actual drillable pivot table.

### ✅ `c3525d4d…` — score 6/10
- Revised unit cost increase appears miscalculated versus stated $0.25 shelf strip increase.
- Production units include fractional stands instead of whole units.
- Final store list tab preview shows statuses but not visible highlighting.
  > 💡 Recalculate revised costs, round production units appropriately, and ensure added stores are visibly highlighted.

### ✅ `9a0d8d36…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises deliverables but omits actual analysis details.
- PPTX content cannot be verified from preview for required calculations.
- Tax treatment of proceeds may be incomplete or unverified.
  > 💡 Include a slide-by-slide summary in the text response to verify all required content.

### ✅ `feb5eefc…` — score 9/10
- Text response promises PDF creation rather than summarizing delivered analysis.
- No explicit confirmation the PDF stays within 12 pages.
- CRAT recommendation may under-serve philanthropic goals if charity intent is substantial.
  > 💡 State key conclusions directly and confirm page count compliance in the response.

### ✅ `3600de06…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises creation but omits slide-specific content details.
- Source-based FINRA and NAIC coverage cannot be verified from file preview.
- Ten-slide requirement is not confirmed by provided evidence.
  > 💡 Provide a slide-by-slide summary confirming 10 slides and explicit FINRA/NAIC citations.

### ✅ `c657103b…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises files but omits substantive client-facing analysis.
- Presentation template usage and slide content compliance are unverified.
- Spreadsheet preview truncation prevents confirming full RMD and tax calculations.
  > 💡 Provide explicit summary details and verify all file contents against every stated requirement.

### ✅ `ae0c1093…` — score 7/10
- One required PDF was delivered as DOCX alongside PDF.
- Guide PDF filename formatting is inconsistent with requested title.
- Observation form preview doesn't confirm three solid lines under each header.
  > 💡 Provide exactly two correctly titled PDFs and verify the form layout matches line requirements.

### ✅ `f9f82549…` — score 9/10
- Extra DOCX file was produced beyond requested deliverables.
- PDF preview appears text-based, not clearly a visual flowchart.
  > 💡 Ensure the PDF is a true flowchart graphic and only requested files are delivered.

### ✅ `57b2cdf2…` — score 8/10
- Text response promises actions instead of summarizing completed deliverables.
- Extra unrequested DOCX and PNG files were produced.
- Report assessment text appears truncated in preview.
  > 💡 State completed results clearly and ensure the PDF report is fully finalized and complete.

### ✅ `84322284…` — score 7/10
- Text response promises PDF creation instead of summarizing actual findings.
- No evidence the PDF content was verified from the provided preview.
- Report period appears incomplete for a full first week timeline.
  > 💡 Summarize the actual report contents in the response and verify the PDF fully matches task requirements.

### ❌ `a46d5cd2…` — score 4/10
- Text response promises a report instead of summarizing actual findings.
- DOCX preview lacks visible integrated photo exhibits or captions.
- Output includes extra DOCX and PNG beyond the required PDF deliverable.
  > 💡 Provide a concise findings summary in the response and ensure the PDF clearly embeds labeled evidence photos.

### ❌ `e14e32ba…` — score 4/10
- Internet research requirement was not completed due to unavailable live access.
- Establishment photos are placeholders, not actual sourced venue images.
- Document preview lacks visible hours, websites, dishes, and media links.
  > 💡 Complete live web research and replace placeholders with verified details and real images.

### ✅ `b1a79ce1…` — score 9/10
- Moodboard content itself is not directly previewed for visual verification.
- Brief mentions custom imagery instead of explicit reference pictures.
  > 💡 Ensure the PNG visibly includes clear reference images and labeled palette elements.

### ✅ `e4f664ea…` — score 6/10
- Extra development notes file was unnecessary.
- Text response promises deliverables instead of confirming completion.
- Preview suggests screenplay formatting may not be fully industry-standard.
  > 💡 Confirm completed deliverables directly and avoid adding unrequested files.

### ❌ `02aa1805…` — score 2/10
- No Illinois EPA well data was extracted or reviewed.
- Workbook includes an unrequested Notes tab and zero well records.
- Email provides no viable well recommendations or top options.
  > 💡 Access the Illinois EPA factsheets, populate the workbook, and recommend qualifying active sand-and-gravel wells.

### ✅ `fd6129bd…` — score 6/10
- Output promises a completed form, but preview shows a template and log.
- SOP content preview is truncated, so full required sections cannot be confirmed.
- Text response references code execution instead of summarizing completed deliverables.
  > 💡 Provide explicit evidence the form is completed and all required SOP sections are present.

### ✅ `ce864f41…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises creation instead of presenting requested brief answers.
- DOCX summary was produced though only Excel and brief responses were requested.
- Workbook preview lacks evidence of the required Stakeholder Registry tab.
  > 💡 Provide direct brief answers and clearly include the Stakeholder Registry worksheet in the workbook.

### ✅ `58ac1cc5…` — score 7/10
- QA email was delivered as DOCX, not an email-ready message.
- Change control references vendor limit details not clearly requested in task.
- No evidence source materials were actually reviewed and compared.
  > 💡 Provide an email-ready output and explicitly cite reviewed COA and RMS values in all deliverables.

### ✅ `3c19c6d1…` — score 6/10
- PPTX content cannot be verified from the provided preview.
- Required slide details and section content are not evidenced.
- Extra PNG files were produced without being requested.
  > 💡 Provide slide-by-slide content evidence or export slides for verification.

### ✅ `a99d85fc…` — score 6/10
- Workbook preview doesn't confirm formulas or dynamic calculator behavior.
- Color-coding and editable light-blue cells are not evidenced.
- Annual and monthly totals reconciliation is not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Verify formulas, formatting, and matching totals directly in the workbook before approval.

### ✅ `55ddb773…` — score 5/10
- Output admits incomplete extraction instead of fully incorporating attached violation items.
- PDF content appears truncated and may include source-note/process language.
- No evidence all required qualifying questions and blank lines were included.
  > 💡 Provide a clean final PDF containing every extracted violation item and required fillable lines only.

### ❌ `1e5a1d7f…` — score 4/10
- Preview shows only paragraphs, not the required table.
- Schedule content is not visible, so duties coverage is unverified.
- Response mentions code execution instead of delivered schedule details.
  > 💡 Ensure the .docx visibly contains the four-column task table populated from the PM duties.

### ✅ `0419f1c3…` — score 6/10
- Acknowledgement-time analysis is missing from the workbook and previewed evidence.
- Resident complaint themes appear incomplete or truncated in the provided preview.
- Text response promises files but omits substantive findings and training justifications.
  > 💡 Include explicit acknowledgement metrics, complete complaint analysis, and training rationale inside the PIP.

### ✅ `ed2bc14c…` — score 9/10
- Excel header row appears incorrect in Categorized Feedback sheet.
- Word memo content preview is truncated, limiting full verification.
  > 💡 Fix the Excel headers and verify the memo explicitly covers all four required components.

### ✅ `46bc7238…` — score 8/10
- Stock photos are generated visuals, not clearly free stock photos.
- Text response promises creation rather than confirming completed deliverable.
- Preview does not confirm flyer page contact details completeness.
  > 💡 Confirm all required PDF sections and explicitly cite free stock image sources used.

### ✅ `2d06bc0a…` — score 9/10
- Text response says will create document instead of confirming completion.
- File preview is truncated, limiting full content verification.
  > 💡 Confirm completion in the response and ensure all required LOI terms appear clearly in the file.

### ✅ `fd3ad420…` — score 9/10
- Text response says will create files instead of confirming completion.
- PDF preview appears truncated at the end of the summary.
  > 💡 Confirm completed delivery in the response and ensure the PDF text ends cleanly.

### ❌ `0818571f…` — score 2/10
- No actual June 2025+ property listings were sourced or presented.
- Workbook and report contain placeholders instead of required property details.
- Required photos, maps, tenant mix, pricing, NOI, and cap rates are missing.
  > 💡 Source 5-10 live listings and populate all required fields with supporting visuals.

### ❌ `6074bba3…` — score 2/10
- PDF contains template placeholders instead of completed CMA data.
- Subject property details and valuation range are not populated.
- Required comps and listings are not actually presented.
  > 💡 Populate the template fully with real comps, charts, and a defensible pricing recommendation.

### ❌ `5ad0c554…` — score 4/10
- DOCX preview shows only title text, not brochure body content.
- No evidence of double-sided brochure structure or milestone details.
- NAR Buyer's Broker Agreement explanation appears missing or unverified.
  > 💡 Include full brochure content covering all milestones, relevant buyer services, and the NAR agreement requirement.

### ❌ `11593a50…` — score 3/10
- Properties are not in Massapequa Park, NY 11762.
- Tour book is 3 pages, not the required 2 pages.
- List Date is missing despite being required.
  > 💡 Use verified MLSLI listings in Massapequa Park 11762 and regenerate exact 2-page and 1-page PDFs.

### ❌ `94925f49…` — score 2/10
- Reports contain placeholder fields instead of verified school data.
- Home listings are illustrative placeholders, not actual nearby homes.
- Output admits no web access, failing source-based research requirements.
  > 💡 Use live public sources to populate verified school metrics and real active listings.

### ✅ `90f37ff3…` — score 6/10
- Comparables are offline broker opinion data, not public platform sourced.
- Subject property address and center identity are missing.
- No evidence comparables were verified within exactly 3 miles.
  > 💡 Use live sourced comparables with full subject details and verified distances.

### ✅ `d3d255b2…` — score 9/10
- Text response promises creation instead of summarizing completed deliverables.
  > 💡 State completed results directly and reference the attached market analysis explicitly.

### ✅ `1bff4551…` — score 5/10
- Text response promises a PDF but omits the actual set list details.
- Collection representation requirement is not evidenced or documented.
- Several selections appear rock-adjacent rather than clearly rock and roll.
  > 💡 Include explicit collection matches and justify each song’s rock relevance in the response and PDF.

### ✅ `650adcb1…` — score 6/10
- Five-days-on, two-days-off pattern is not followed consistently.
- Time Off Requests tab content is not shown or verified.
- Coverage gap dates may be incomplete due to truncated preview.
  > 💡 Verify all sheets, enforce the required work pattern, and confirm the time-off tab and gap notes.

### ✅ `01d7e53e…` — score 7/10
- Text response promises a draft but does not summarize completed agreement details.
- File preview shows truncated section, risking missing required additional spaces terms.
- Cannot verify all required city standard clauses were fully incorporated.
  > 💡 Confirm the final document includes all exhibits, contacts, and full miscellaneous clauses.

### ✅ `a73fbc98…` — score 6/10
- Seven vendors remain unassigned without clear resolution or escalation.
- Layout overview DOCX appears placeholder-like and not the original annotated layout.
- Text response claims a PDF packet, but primary layout file is DOCX.
  > 💡 Provide a finalized annotated layout and resolve or clearly document all unassigned vendors.

### ✅ `0ec25916…` — score 7/10
- PDF is two pages, not the required one page.
- Evidence of source referencing is not shown in the deliverable.
- DOCX was produced though only a PDF was requested.
  > 💡 Revise to a single-page PDF and explicitly align content with the cited sources.

### ✅ `116e791e…` — score 8/10
- PDF content was not previewed, so file compliance is unverified.
- Text response describes intent instead of summarizing completed care plan content.
- Preview shows a punctuation omission in one intervention sentence.
  > 💡 Verify the PDF directly and summarize the actual completed deliverable more concretely.

### ✅ `dd724c67…` — score 6/10
- Facility list is curated, not all Long Island facilities as requested.
- Spreadsheet uses extra columns and title rows instead of minimum clean table.
- TFU guide content may rely on unavailable local file, risking incomplete accuracy.
  > 💡 Provide a complete verified facility inventory and a source-based TFU guide in clean tabular sheets.

### ✅ `7151c60a…` — score 5/10
- Checklist preview omits the required company logo.
- Fax cover preview lacks sender, recipient, date, subject, and page fields.
- Checklist content preview doesn't confirm all required patient information items.
  > 💡 Verify both DOCX files include all specified fields, logo, and complete checklist table content.

### ❌ `90edba97…` — score 3/10
- Workbook lacks actual monthly lab values across tracker sheets.
- Output adds an unrequested summary DOCX deliverable.
- Response admits missing source data and incomplete population.
  > 💡 Populate the Excel with all patient monthly results and protocol-driven changes only.

### ✅ `91060ff0…` — score 8/10
- Text response promises creation but doesn't summarize completed poster content.
- References are mentioned but not clearly visible in the preview.
- Poster content preview is truncated, limiting verification of all required sections.
  > 💡 State completed deliverables clearly and ensure references and all required sections are plainly visible.

### ✅ `8384083a…` — score 6/10
- PDF is 3 pages, exceeding the 1-2 page requirement.
- Preview shows only part of the guide; required medications may be missing.
- Text response promises creation but does not summarize completed deliverables.
  > 💡 Condense the guide to 1-2 pages and verify all listed medications are fully included.

### ✅ `045aba2e…` — score 6/10
- Text promises three PDFs, but extra DOCX files were also produced.
- No evidence checklist content was specifically sourced from the cited 2025 lawbook.
- Original task also requested staff roles responsibilities, not addressed.
  > 💡 Provide only the three required PDFs and explicitly cover staff responsibilities and cited-source compliance.

### ❌ `f2986c1f…` — score 2/10
- Medications were not identified using Drugs.com.
- Spreadsheet contains placeholders and notes instead of completed medication entries.
- MedlinePlus counseling links are missing or marked NA.
  > 💡 Identify each visible medication and fully populate the spreadsheet with verified details and links.

### ✅ `ffed32d8…` — score 7/10
- Text response promises code actions not requested in the deliverable.
- Preview truncation prevents verifying the full comparative table content.
- No explicit per-drug revenue differences are confirmed in the preview.
  > 💡 Keep the response focused and ensure the PDF clearly shows complete per-drug calculations.

### ✅ `b3573f20…` — score 6/10
- PDF is 6 pages, not the required 3 pages.
- Text response describes intent instead of delivered document details.
- ODT file was produced though only a PDF was requested.
  > 💡 Deliver exactly a 3-page PDF and summarize the completed content accurately.

### ✅ `a69be28f…` — score 9/10
- Text response promises extra workbook not requested.
- PDF preview shows minor formatting errors in executive summary values.
  > 💡 Remove unrequested deliverables and fix currency/unit formatting inconsistencies in summary tables.

### ✅ `788d2bc6…` — score 7/10
- No evidence open-source image sourcing was documented.
- Some slides repeat summary text in bullets, reducing polish.
- Alignment to SERVICESV5.docx cannot be fully verified from preview.
  > 💡 Add source credits, tighten slide copy, and verify every service matches SERVICESV5.docx.

### ✅ `74ed1dc7…` — score 9/10
- Text response promises creation instead of summarizing completed proposal.
- File preview is truncated, limiting full content verification.
  > 💡 Ensure the text response confirms delivery and includes key recommendations succinctly.

### ✅ `69a8ef86…` — score 7/10
- Text response only summarizes deliverables, not their substantive content.
- Preview does not confirm internal SOP includes all required step deadlines and owners.
- External guide may omit required request and labeling details in full.
  > 💡 Verify both DOCX files explicitly include every required step, timeline, role, and account instruction.

### ✅ `ab81b076…` — score 9/10
- Text response describes intent rather than completed deliverable details.
  > 💡 Reference the completed PDF directly and summarize its key contents in the response.

### ✅ `d7cfae6f…` — score 6/10
- Timeframe says end of Q1 2023, conflicting with Q1 2024 planning.
- Projection method from Q3 2022 to Q1 2023 is unclear or likely incorrect.
- Extra Detail sheet was added beyond requested recap deliverable.
  > 💡 Clarify the forecast period and document the exact projection logic in the workbook.

### ✅ `19403010…` — score 6/10
- Workbook title is sheet content, not the required sheet name.
- Section tables likely lack clear formatting and one-page recap presentation.
- Text response promises methods, not completed analysis details.
  > 💡 Ensure the sheet is correctly named and visibly formatted as a one-page executive recap.

### ✅ `7ed932dd…` — score 5/10
- No evidence highlighted rows were applied in the workbook.
- Calculations appear wrong for shipment-supported coverage and OOS dates.
- All SKUs need additions, suggesting flawed inventory logic.
  > 💡 Validate formulas against shipment timing and ensure required row highlighting is present.

### ❌ `105f8ad0…` — score 4/10
- No live competitor research was performed as required.
- Benchmark data uses assumptions instead of documented competitor product prices.
- Output adds an unrequested PNG and lacks evidence of SKU-level rationale.
  > 💡 Perform September 2025 channel price research and document competitor sources in the workbook.

### ❌ `b57efde3…` — score 3/10
- Did not research exhibitors from the official Aqua Nor list.
- Workbook appears to be a template with placeholders, not findings.
- Methodology DOCX was extra and not requested.
  > 💡 Provide a completed Excel prospect list with validated exhibitor leads and qualification details.

### ❌ `15d37511…` — score 1/10
- Spreadsheet lacks required financial columns and calculations.
- Pricing data and consumable values are missing.
- Year 1 gross margin total is not provided.
  > 💡 Populate all pricing fields, apply tiered pricing, and calculate complete product and consumable margins.

### ✅ `bb863dd9…` — score 6/10
- Quotation sheet preview omits itemized module lines and required fields verification.
- WHO documentation link is referenced but not shown as a usable link.
- Only 8 modules quoted; completeness against all IEHK 2017 modules is unclear.
  > 💡 Verify all required modules and itemized fields are present and include the actual WHO URL.

### ✅ `fe0d3941…` — score 7/10
- PPTX content was not previewed, so required slides cannot be verified.
- Survey omits any mention of sampling over a hundred people.
- An extra ODT file was produced without being requested.
  > 💡 Verify the PowerPoint slide contents and note the intended survey sample size explicitly.

### ❌ `6a900a40…` — score 4/10
- Workbook content shows inconsistent quantity, price, and lead time entries.
- Required transport options and grand totals are not evidenced in preview.
- Text response describes intent, not verified completed updates.
  > 💡 Verify the workbook against all source files and correct missing or inconsistent quotation details.

### ❌ `9efbcd35…` — score 4/10
- Document admits no live web access, undermining required source-based analysis.
- MSCI-based Q1 2025 performance data appears illustrative, not verified.
- Output preview shows truncated evidence for required regional sections.
  > 💡 Use verified MSCI and cited news data, and clearly evidence all required sections.

### ✅ `4de6a529…` — score 6/10
- Output adds unsupported HTML and Excel files beyond the requested PDF.
- Preview shows truncated content, so full required line-item coverage is unverified.
- Original task references attached PDF inputs, but source adherence is not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Provide only the requested PDF and ensure every required asset-class line is fully visible and verified.

### ❌ `4c4dc603…` — score 4/10
- Several required sections contain undisclosed placeholders instead of actual IM-derived content.
- Problem, solution, and team sections appear incomplete or poorly structured.
- Text response promises delivery rather than summarizing completed work.
  > 💡 Populate all required sections with concrete IM facts and remove placeholder language.

### ✅ `bb499d9c…` — score 6/10
- Main response promises work instead of summarizing completed deliverables.
- PDF is only 9 pages, suggesting limited detail versus requested comprehensiveness.
- No evidence of publicly sourced industry research citations or references.
  > 💡 Provide a concise completion summary and add cited industry best-practice sources in the document.

### ❌ `5349dd7b…` — score 4/10
- Workbook uses unverified local estimates instead of required researched published data.
- No evidence of search-engine research or true 2020-2025 historical rate increases.
- Recommendations are unreliable because source rates are placeholder-like and unverifiable.
  > 💡 Redo with verified published carrier data and document sources in the workbook.

### ✅ `a4a9195c…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises a file but omits SOP details.
- Preview shows missing detailed steps under section 3.
- Reference to IPC-A-610G appears minimal, not integrated.
  > 💡 Include complete process steps and explicit IPC-A-610G-based handling requirements in the document and summary.

### ✅ `552b7dd0…` — score 6/10
- No evidence the presentation includes recurring description-based takeaways.
- PPT content cannot be verified from the provided preview.
- Average resolution time overall and separate statistics are unconfirmed.
  > 💡 Provide slide-level content preview or extracted PPT text to verify all required elements.

### ❌ `11dcc268…` — score 3/10
- Several items have 'NOT FOUND' instead of assigned line locations.
- P11-P09457-01 quantity handling contradicts the half-received instruction.
- Report likely omits proper cross-referenced receiving quantities and balances.
  > 💡 Verify source files and populate all moved-to locations, quantities moved, and remaining balances accurately.

### ❌ `76418a2c…` — score 2/10
- Customer and pick ticket fields are blank throughout the manifest.
- Actual costs, savings, and method rules show missing nan values.
- Summary and tracking details contain placeholder NAN data.
  > 💡 Populate all order fields from source files and recalculate methods, costs, and savings accurately.

### ✅ `0e386e32…` — score 5/10
- Output promises a code scaffold, but only documents and ZIP path are shown.
- Original task is truncated, so full requirement coverage is unverified.
- Production features are placeholders, not complete implementations.
  > 💡 Include explicit code contents and verify every original requirement against delivered files.

### ✅ `2c249e0f…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises files but omits actual deliverable content.
- Original task requests included text file description appears truncated or unverified.
- Preview alone cannot confirm data_flow.txt completeness and correctness.
  > 💡 Include the actual YAML and text contents in the response and verify all task details.

## Failure Analysis

The terminal errors are dominated by deterministic execution fragility rather than broad reasoning collapse. All 9 errors came from code/runtime failures: openpyxl merged-cell writes in 1752cb53-5983-46b6-92ee-58ac85a11283, brittle spreadsheet parsing in 8077e700-2b31-402d-bd09-df4d33c39653 and a0552909-bc66-4a3a-8970-ee0d17b49718, a function-signature bug in 664a42e5-3240-413a-9a57-ea93c6303269, a date-type assumption in 6241e678-4ba3-4831-b3c7-78412697febc, a pandas deprecation in 1d4672c8-b0a7-488f-905f-9ab4e25a19f7, and three unterminated triple-quoted string syntax errors in software-developer tasks 7de33b48-5163-4f50-b5f3-8deea8185e57, 854f3814-681c-4950-91ac-55b0db0e3781, and 4122f866-01fa-400b-904d-fa171cdab7c7. This creates a clear occupation cluster: Software Developers account for 3 of the 9 total failures, which is why Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services underperformed despite many otherwise successful office-document tasks. Manufacturing and Finance/Insurance also contributed runtime failures, but those were mostly parser/compatibility issues around spreadsheets and date libraries rather than task ambiguity.

Across the 211 successful tasks, the most common low-QA pattern was source-grounding failure: the system often produced structurally correct deliverables with placeholder content, offline assumptions, or unverifiable external research. Real-estate and finance tasks show this most clearly: 0818571f-5ff7-4d39-9d2c-ced5ae44299e and 6074bba3-7e3a-4b1c-b8c6-a15bb6695c3b returned placeholder listings/CMA data, 94925f49-36bc-42da-b45b-61078d329300 used illustrative school and housing data, and 8079e27d-b6f3-4f75-a9b5-db27903c798d spent 660 seconds yet still delivered a mostly blank S&P 500 workbook. Similar patterns appear in government and health care research tasks such as f84ea6ac-8f9f-428c-b96c-d0884e30f7c7, 0353ee0c-18b5-4ad3-88e8-e001d223e1d7, and 6d2c8e55-fe20-45c6-bdaf-93e676868503. This explains why Real Estate achieved 25/25 completion while still averaging only 5.7 QA: the pipeline can generate files reliably, but it degrades sharply when live sourcing or exact attachment extraction is essential.

A second broad failure mode is deliverable-contract drift even on otherwise reasonable content. Many successful tasks were penalized because the model answered with intent language ('I will create') instead of confirming the finished artifact, added unrequested files, missed exact page/file constraints, or failed to preserve the requested template. Examples span sectors: c44e9b62-7cd8-4f72-8ad9-f8fbddb94083 and dfb4e0cd-a0b7-454e-b943-0dd586c2764c added extra files, f9a1c16c-53fd-4c8f-88cc-5c325ec2f0bb and 0ec25916-1b5c-4bfe-93d3-4e103d860f3a missed page-count requirements, c357f0e2-963d-4eb7-a6fa-3078fe55b3ba failed to preserve headers, and many otherwise decent outputs such as a328feea-47db-4856-b4be-2bdc63dd88fb, 401a07f1-d57e-4bb0-889b-22de8c900f0e, and d3d255b2-f5f2-4841-9f62-2083ec9ef3da were docked mainly because the response described the deliverable instead of summarizing completed content. This pattern is widespread enough that it likely depressed QA more than pure analytical mistakes.

Retries helped operational completion but did not consistently improve substantive quality. Several retried tasks still failed outright (1752cb53-5983-46b6-92ee-58ac85a11283, a0552909-bc66-4a3a-8970-ee0d17b49718, 664a42e5-3240-413a-9a57-ea93c6303269, 6241e678-4ba3-4831-b3c7-78412697febc, 1d4672c8-b0a7-488f-905f-9ab4e25a19f7, 7de33b48-5163-4f50-b5f3-8deea8185e57, 854f3814-681c-4950-91ac-55b0db0e3781, 4122f866-01fa-400b-904d-fa171cdab7c7), while many retried successes remained low quality, such as 3f821c2d-ab97-46ec-a0fb-b8f73c2682bc (QA 4), 6dcae3f5-bf1c-48e0-8b4b-23e6486a934c (QA 4), 90edba97-74f0-425a-8ff6-8b93182eb7cb (QA 3), and e14e32ba-d310-4d45-9b8a-6d73d0ece1ae (QA 4). Latency also did not buy quality: 8079e27d-b6f3-4f75-a9b5-db27903c798d (660s, QA 2), a941b6d8-4289-4500-b45a-f8e4fc94a724 (458s, QA 4), and e222075d-5d62-4757-ae3c-e34b0846583b (175s, QA 3) were all slow and weak. The worst quality cluster is therefore not 'hard but eventually solved' work; it is complex media, live-research, and code-generation work where the system spends more time yet still falls back to placeholders, planning docs, or brittle code.

## Recommendations

First, harden the execution layer before changing model behavior. The failures are concrete enough to support targeted guards: compile generated Python before running it to catch triple-quote syntax errors seen in 7de33b48-5163-4f50-b5f3-8deea8185e57, 854f3814-681c-4950-91ac-55b0db0e3781, and 4122f866-01fa-400b-904d-fa171cdab7c7; add compatibility shims for pandas frequency aliases and date normalization to prevent 1d4672c8-b0a7-488f-905f-9ab4e25a19f7 and 6241e678-4ba3-4831-b3c7-78412697febc; add workbook-safe write helpers that skip merged cells to avoid 1752cb53-5983-46b6-92ee-58ac85a11283; and add adaptive header detection/fuzzy matching for spreadsheets so a0552909-bc66-4a3a-8970-ee0d17b49718 and 8077e700-2b31-402d-bd09-df4d33c39653 do not fail on slightly unexpected layouts. These are low-level fixes with high leverage because they attack almost every hard failure directly.

Second, tighten prompt contracts and final-answer formatting around deliverable compliance. A large share of QA loss came from the model describing intended work instead of confirming completed files, adding extras, or missing exact page/file constraints. The system prompt for execution tasks should require a final structured checklist: requested files, produced files, page count/duration/bit depth where relevant, and a statement that no extra files were created unless requested. That single change would address many recurring deductions across sectors, including c44e9b62-7cd8-4f72-8ad9-f8fbddb94083, dfb4e0cd-a0b7-454e-b943-0dd586c2764c, f9a1c16c-53fd-4c8f-88cc-5c325ec2f0bb, 0ec25916-1b5c-4bfe-93d3-4e103d860f3a, and the widespread 'I will create' issue seen in otherwise strong tasks like a328feea-47db-4856-b4be-2bdc63dd88fb and d3d255b2-f5f2-4841-9f62-2083ec9ef3da. A template-preservation sub-check should also be mandatory for spreadsheet tasks, given issues like c357f0e2-963d-4eb7-a6fa-3078fe55b3ba.

Third, route live-research and high-fidelity media tasks differently from bounded document tasks. The strongest sectors in this run were structured internal-document and Excel tasks in Retail, Government, and Wholesale; the weakest were tasks needing live property/market data, public pricing, stock footage, audio/video verification, or fully realized code/CAD artifacts. For research-heavy work such as 0818571f-5ff7-4d39-9d2c-ced5ae44299e, 6074bba3-7e3a-4b1c-b8c6-a15bb6695c3b, 94925f49-36bc-42da-b45b-61078d329300, and 8079e27d-b6f3-4f75-a9b5-db27903c798d, success should require a browser-backed citation pipeline or else the task should be blocked early rather than filled with placeholders. For film/audio/media tasks like e222075d-5d62-4757-ae3c-e34b0846583b, c94452e4-39cd-4846-b73a-ab75933d1ad7, a941b6d8-4289-4500-b45a-f8e4fc94a724, and several Audio and Video Technician tasks, add artifact-verification tools that inspect output duration, codec, page count, waveform metadata, and embedded assets instead of trusting the text response. Config-wise, high reasoning appears to add latency without lifting quality on these classes, so use dynamic reasoning tiers: keep high reasoning for complex financial/legal synthesis, but lower or specialized routing for simple document tasks and use dedicated validators for media/code tasks.

Fourth, make retries more diagnostic and raise the QA bar for source-dependent work. The current 54 retries improved completion but often just produced a slightly different low-quality artifact; retried low-QA tasks like 3f821c2d-ab97-46ec-a0fb-b8f73c2682bc, 6dcae3f5-bf1c-48e0-8b4b-23e6486a934c, 90edba97-74f0-425a-8ff6-8b93182eb7cb, and e14e32ba-d310-4d45-9b8a-6d73d0ece1ae suggest blind reruns are inefficient. Retries should be reserved for transient tool/runtime failures; deterministic failures should trigger a repair loop that feeds the exact stack trace or QA defect list back into generation. Separately, tune the 'success' threshold so source-missing placeholder outputs do not count as fully completed in research tasks; if a task requires live listings, public articles, screenshots, or exact external metrics, then placeholders like those in f84ea6ac-8f9f-428c-b96c-d0884e30f7c7, 0353ee0c-18b5-4ad3-88e8-e001d223e1d7, 02aa1805-c658-4069-8a6a-02dec146063a, and f2986c1f-2bbf-4b83-bc93-624a9d617f45 should fail QA gating rather than inflate completion. That change would make reported task completion better aligned with actual deliverable usefulness.

## Deliverable Files

- `83d10b06…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `7b08cd4d…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `7d7fc9a7…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `43dc9778…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 3 file(s)
- `ee09d943…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `f84ea6ac…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a328feea…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `27e8912c…` (Government): 5 file(s)
- `17111c03…` (Government): 3 file(s)
- `c44e9b62…` (Government): 5 file(s)
- `99ac6944…` (Information): 5 file(s)
- `f9a1c16c…` (Information): 4 file(s)
- `38889c3b…` (Information): 7 file(s)
- `ff85ee58…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `4b894ae3…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `1b1ade2d…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `93b336f3…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `15ddd28d…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `24d1e93f…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `05389f78…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `575f8679…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `a74ead3b…` (Government): 7 file(s)
- `bbe0a93b…` (Government): 6 file(s)
- `85d95ce5…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `76d10872…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `36d567ba…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `7bbfcfe9…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `2696757c…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `dfb4e0cd…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `4c18ebae…` (Government): 4 file(s)
- `cebf301e…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `c2e8f271…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `2ea2e5b5…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 5 file(s)
- `c357f0e2…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `a45bc83b…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 3 file(s)
- `a10ec48c…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `fccaa4a1…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 9 file(s)
- `f5d428fd…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 8 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)
- `b7a5912e…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `aa071045…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 4 file(s)
- `476db143…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `61f546a8…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `f3351922…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `61717508…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `0ed38524…` (Finance and Insurance): 5 file(s)
- `87da214f…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `d025a41c…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `401a07f1…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `afe56d05…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `9a8c8e28…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `3a4c347c…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `ec2fccc9…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `8c8fc328…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `e222075d…` (Information): 18 file(s)
- `c94452e4…` (Information): 11 file(s)
- `75401f7c…` (Information): 6 file(s)
- `a941b6d8…` (Information): 6 file(s)
- `8079e27d…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `e21cd746…` (Finance and Insurance): 6 file(s)
- `9e8607e7…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `c7d83f01…` (Finance and Insurance): 9 file(s)
- `46b34f78…` (Finance and Insurance): 5 file(s)
- `a1963a68…` (Finance and Insurance): 7 file(s)
- `5f6c57dd…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `b39a5aa7…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `b78fd844…` (Finance and Insurance): 5 file(s)
- `4520f882…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `ec591973…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `62f04c2f…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `3f821c2d…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `e996036e…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `327fbc21…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `6dcae3f5…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `1aecc095…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `0353ee0c…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `40a8c4b1…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `4d1a8410…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `8c823e32…` (Government): 3 file(s)
- `eb54f575…` (Government): 3 file(s)
- `11e1b169…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a95a5829…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `22c0809b…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `bf68f2ad…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `efca245f…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `9e39df84…` (Manufacturing): 5 file(s)
- `68d8d901…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `bd72994f…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `211d0093…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `d4525420…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `45c6237b…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `cecac8f9…` (Retail Trade): 6 file(s)
- `8f9e8bcd…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `0fad6023…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `02314fc6…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `4d61a19a…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `6436ff9e…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `8a7b6fca…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `40a99a31…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `b9665ca1…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `c6269101…` (Manufacturing): 9 file(s)
- `be830ca0…` (Manufacturing): 9 file(s)
- `cd9efc18…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `a97369c7…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 3 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): 2 file(s)
- `5e2b6aab…` (Manufacturing): 18 file(s)
- `46fc494e…` (Manufacturing): 7 file(s)
- `3940b7e7…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `5a2d70da…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `74d6e8b0…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 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): 4 file(s)
- `41f6ef59…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `6d2c8e55…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 11 file(s)
- `4b98ccce…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `60221cd0…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `ef8719da…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `3baa0009…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `5d0feb24…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `6974adea…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `1a78e076…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `1b9ec237…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `0112fc9b…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `772e7524…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `e6429658…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `b5d2e6f1…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `f841ddcf…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `47ef842d…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `1137e2bb…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `c3525d4d…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `9a0d8d36…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `feb5eefc…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `3600de06…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `c657103b…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `ae0c1093…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `f9f82549…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `57b2cdf2…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `84322284…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `a46d5cd2…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `e14e32ba…` (Information): 6 file(s)
- `b1a79ce1…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `e4f664ea…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `a079d38f…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `02aa1805…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `fd6129bd…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `ce864f41…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 5 file(s)
- `58ac1cc5…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 5 file(s)
- `3c19c6d1…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 3 file(s)
- `a99d85fc…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `55ddb773…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `1e5a1d7f…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `0419f1c3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 4 file(s)
- `ed2bc14c…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 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): 6 file(s)
- `6074bba3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 4 file(s)
- `5ad0c554…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `11593a50…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 20 file(s)
- `94925f49…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 6 file(s)
- `90f37ff3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 4 file(s)
- `d3d255b2…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `403b9234…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `1bff4551…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `650adcb1…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `01d7e53e…` (Government): 1 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): 2 file(s)
- `90edba97…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `91060ff0…` (Retail Trade): 5 file(s)
- `8384083a…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `045aba2e…` (Retail Trade): 6 file(s)
- `f2986c1f…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `ffed32d8…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `b3573f20…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `a69be28f…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `788d2bc6…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `74ed1dc7…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `69a8ef86…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `ab81b076…` (Wholesale Trade): 4 file(s)
- `d7cfae6f…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `19403010…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `7ed932dd…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `105f8ad0…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `b57efde3…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `15d37511…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `bb863dd9…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `fe0d3941…` (Wholesale Trade): 4 file(s)
- `6a900a40…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `9efbcd35…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `4de6a529…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `4c4dc603…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `bb499d9c…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `5349dd7b…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `a4a9195c…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `552b7dd0…` (Manufacturing): 5 file(s)
- `11dcc268…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `76418a2c…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `0e386e32…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 4 file(s)
- `2c249e0f…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
