# Experiment Report: GPT-5.2 Chat Elicit v2 — code_interpreter + resume 2 (Full 220)

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| **Experiment ID** | `exp010_GPT52Chat_resume2_elicit_v2` |
| **Condition** | Elicit v2 16k + code_interpreter |
| **Model** | gpt-5.2-chat |
| **Execution Mode** | code_interpreter |
| **Date** | 2026-03-04 |
| **Duration** | 183m 22s |
| **Generated At** | 2026-03-04T20:17:02.190449+00:00 |
| 🤗 HF Dataset | [exp010_GPT52Chat_resume2_elicit_v2](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp010_GPT52Chat_resume2_elicit_v2) |
| 📊 Self-Report | [self_report.json](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp010_GPT52Chat_resume2_elicit_v2/blob/main/self_report.json) |
| 📊 Grading | ⏳ Awaiting (`scores.json`) |

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

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

This run evaluated GPT-5.2 Chat in code_interpreter mode under the Elicit v2 16k + code_interpreter condition across 220 tasks. Operationally, the experiment showed a very high task completion rate: 219 of 220 tasks succeeded (99.5%), with 1 error and 21 retried tasks. Average latency was 39,096 ms, indicating a relatively heavy execution profile but still consistent enough to sustain near-complete throughput.

From a self-assessed confidence perspective, the model’s average Self-QA score was 5.54/10, with observed scores ranging from 2 to 9. That pattern indicates that the run was much stronger on completion than on uniformly strong LLM-evaluated quality. In practical terms, the system usually produced an answer and associated deliverable, but its own evaluation suggests many outputs were in the moderate-confidence range rather than consistently high-confidence.

Sector coverage was broad and stable. Eight sectors achieved full completion, including Finance and Insurance, Government, Health Care and Social Assistance, Information, Manufacturing, Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, Real Estate and Rental and Leasing, and Retail Trade. Wholesale Trade was the only sector with a shortfall, at 24/25 successful tasks, which accounts for the single recorded error.

Deliverable file generation quality appears operationally reliable based on the high success rate and limited failure count. However, the moderate average Self-QA score implies that while files were generally generated and returned successfully, the model’s LLM-evaluated quality did not consistently indicate strong confidence in completeness, precision, or polish. The experiment therefore looks robust in execution and output delivery, with quality more mixed than completion metrics alone would suggest.

## Key Metrics

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Tasks | 220 |
| Success | 219 (99.5%) |
| Errors | 1 |
| Retried Tasks | 21 |
| Avg QA Score | 5.54/10 |
| Min QA Score | 2/10 |
| Max QA Score | 9/10 |
| Avg Latency | 39,096ms |
| Max Latency | 262,403ms |
| Total LLM Time | 8601s |

## File Generation

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Tasks requiring files | 185 |
| Successfully generated | 184 (99.5%) |
| Failed → dummy created | 1 |

### Resume Rounds

| Round | Attempted | Recovered | Still Failed |
|-------|-----------|-----------|--------------|
| 1 | 16 | 16 | 0 |
| 2 | 5 | 4 | 1 |

## Quality Analysis

The Self-QA distribution points to a middle-heavy quality profile. An average of 5.54/10, with a minimum of 2 and maximum of 9, suggests the model frequently judged its outputs as acceptable but not consistently strong. This is a meaningful distinction: task completion was near-saturated, yet self-assessed confidence remained moderate, indicating that successful execution often did not translate into uniformly high LLM-evaluated quality.

At the sector level, Government had the highest reported average QA at 6.2/10, making it the strongest area in self-assessed confidence. Manufacturing and Wholesale Trade followed at 5.8/10, while Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services averaged 5.6/10. Finance and Insurance and Health Care and Social Assistance both came in at 5.4/10, Retail Trade at 5.5/10, Information at 5.2/10, and Real Estate and Rental and Leasing was lowest at 5.1/10. These differences are not extreme, but they do show meaningful variation in LLM-evaluated quality by sector.

Latency does not appear to map cleanly to higher self-assessed confidence. Information had the highest average latency by a wide margin at 56,585 ms, yet its average QA was only 5.2/10, below the overall mean. By contrast, Government achieved the highest QA score with a lower-than-Information latency of 37,900 ms. Real Estate and Rental and Leasing also had relatively typical latency at 36,593 ms while producing the lowest QA score, which further suggests that longer runtimes were not reliably buying better output quality in this run.

Occupation-specific observations cannot be isolated from the provided aggregate summary because results are grouped by sector rather than by occupation. Within that limitation, the main quality signal is that file-producing task execution was stable across sectors, but the model’s self-assessed confidence remained moderate and uneven. The most favorable pattern is Government’s combination of full completion and the strongest QA, while the clearest caution flags are Information’s high latency without corresponding quality gains and Wholesale Trade’s lone completion miss despite above-average QA on the tasks that did finish.

## Sector Breakdown

| Sector | Tasks | Success | Success% | Avg QA | Avg Latency |
|--------|-------|---------|----------|--------|-------------|
| Finance and Insurance | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 5.36/10 | 34,847ms |
| Government | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 6.2/10 | 37,900ms |
| Health Care and Social Assistance | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 5.36/10 | 36,494ms |
| Information | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 5.24/10 | 56,585ms |
| Manufacturing | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 5.76/10 | 37,310ms |
| Professional, Scientific, and Technical  | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 5.6/10 | 37,230ms |
| Real Estate and Rental and Leasing | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 5.12/10 | 36,593ms |
| Retail Trade | 20 | 20 | 100.0% | 5.45/10 | 38,178ms |
| Wholesale Trade | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 5.79/10 | 36,542ms |

## Task Results

| # | Task ID | Sector | Occupation | Status | Retry | Files | QA Score | Latency |
|---|---------|--------|------------|--------|-------|-------|----------|---------|
| 1 | `83d10b06…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 29375ms |
| 2 | `7b08cd4d…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 37871ms |
| 3 | `7d7fc9a7…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 30438ms |
| 4 | `43dc9778…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 55506ms |
| 5 | `ee09d943…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 28085ms |
| 6 | `f84ea6ac…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 30443ms |
| 7 | `a328feea…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 22403ms |
| 8 | `27e8912c…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 5 | 5/10 | 62088ms |
| 9 | `17111c03…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 44619ms |
| 10 | `c44e9b62…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 4/10 | 37591ms |
| 11 | `99ac6944…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 48541ms |
| 12 | `f9a1c16c…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 48298ms |
| 13 | `38889c3b…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 6 | 6/10 | 91638ms |
| 14 | `ff85ee58…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 40120ms |
| 15 | `4b894ae3…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 45002ms |
| 16 | `1b1ade2d…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 36391ms |
| 17 | `93b336f3…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 28043ms |
| 18 | `15ddd28d…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 34173ms |
| 19 | `24d1e93f…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 7/10 | 25028ms |
| 20 | `05389f78…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 47143ms |
| 21 | `575f8679…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 35874ms |
| 22 | `a74ead3b…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 45896ms |
| 23 | `bbe0a93b…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 6 | 6/10 | 51204ms |
| 24 | `85d95ce5…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 42229ms |
| 25 | `76d10872…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 7/10 | 41207ms |
| 26 | `36d567ba…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 22662ms |
| 27 | `7bbfcfe9…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 22814ms |
| 28 | `2696757c…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 50395ms |
| 29 | `dfb4e0cd…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 20425ms |
| 30 | `4c18ebae…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 35700ms |
| 31 | `cebf301e…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 39913ms |
| 32 | `c2e8f271…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 27614ms |
| 33 | `2ea2e5b5…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 5 | 8/10 | 37342ms |
| 34 | `c357f0e2…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 20987ms |
| 35 | `a45bc83b…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 37230ms |
| 36 | `a10ec48c…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 3/10 | 29743ms |
| 37 | `fccaa4a1…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 34793ms |
| 38 | `f5d428fd…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 8 | 4/10 | 39193ms |
| 39 | `2fa8e956…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 64963ms |
| 40 | `0e4fe8cd…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 26901ms |
| 41 | `a0ef404e…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 26588ms |
| 42 | `b7a5912e…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 26853ms |
| 43 | `aa071045…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 27891ms |
| 44 | `476db143…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 4 | 8/10 | 48859ms |
| 45 | `61f546a8…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 41968ms |
| 46 | `f3351922…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 21994ms |
| 47 | `61717508…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 31907ms |
| 48 | `0ed38524…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 31067ms |
| 49 | `87da214f…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 22398ms |
| 50 | `d025a41c…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 22457ms |
| 51 | `401a07f1…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 0 | 2/10 | 27513ms |
| 52 | `afe56d05…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 38722ms |
| 53 | `9a8c8e28…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 5/10 | 44282ms |
| 54 | `3a4c347c…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 22516ms |
| 55 | `ec2fccc9…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 48583ms |
| 56 | `8c8fc328…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 8/10 | 20171ms |
| 57 | `e222075d…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 117808ms |
| 58 | `c94452e4…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 0 | 3/10 | 114029ms |
| 59 | `75401f7c…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 16 | 3/10 | 262403ms |
| 60 | `a941b6d8…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 43761ms |
| 61 | `8079e27d…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 31102ms |
| 62 | `e21cd746…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 49865ms |
| 63 | `9e8607e7…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 50977ms |
| 64 | `c7d83f01…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 51980ms |
| 65 | `46b34f78…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 5/10 | 27730ms |
| 66 | `a1963a68…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 48876ms |
| 67 | `5f6c57dd…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 0 | 2/10 | 35420ms |
| 68 | `b39a5aa7…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 31724ms |
| 69 | `b78fd844…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 36136ms |
| 70 | `4520f882…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 30433ms |
| 71 | `ec591973…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 23124ms |
| 72 | `62f04c2f…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 29915ms |
| 73 | `3f821c2d…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 27145ms |
| 74 | `e996036e…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 26870ms |
| 75 | `327fbc21…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 106213ms |
| 76 | `6dcae3f5…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 26774ms |
| 77 | `1aecc095…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 38581ms |
| 78 | `0353ee0c…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 46569ms |
| 79 | `40a8c4b1…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 33987ms |
| 80 | `4d1a8410…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 29494ms |
| 81 | `8c823e32…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 48984ms |
| 82 | `eb54f575…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 52995ms |
| 83 | `11e1b169…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 37240ms |
| 84 | `a95a5829…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 22826ms |
| 85 | `22c0809b…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 46488ms |
| 86 | `bf68f2ad…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 38160ms |
| 87 | `efca245f…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 25879ms |
| 88 | `9e39df84…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 33155ms |
| 89 | `68d8d901…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 27690ms |
| 90 | `1752cb53…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 28294ms |
| 91 | `bd72994f…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 31634ms |
| 92 | `211d0093…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 37480ms |
| 93 | `d4525420…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 29541ms |
| 94 | `45c6237b…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 44096ms |
| 95 | `cecac8f9…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 62442ms |
| 96 | `8f9e8bcd…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 29958ms |
| 97 | `0fad6023…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 28685ms |
| 98 | `02314fc6…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 29391ms |
| 99 | `4d61a19a…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 27059ms |
| 100 | `6436ff9e…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 27265ms |
| 101 | `8a7b6fca…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 48510ms |
| 102 | `40a99a31…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 38919ms |
| 103 | `b9665ca1…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 39531ms |
| 104 | `c6269101…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 35972ms |
| 105 | `be830ca0…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 5 | 5/10 | 43869ms |
| 106 | `cd9efc18…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 31421ms |
| 107 | `a97369c7…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 49913ms |
| 108 | `3f625cb2…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 50344ms |
| 109 | `aad21e4c…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 29149ms |
| 110 | `8314d1b1…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 60387ms |
| 111 | `5e2b6aab…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 9 | 5/10 | 51048ms |
| 112 | `46fc494e…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 8 | 4/10 | 39731ms |
| 113 | `3940b7e7…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 62095ms |
| 114 | `8077e700…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 51110ms |
| 115 | `5a2d70da…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 45301ms |
| 116 | `74d6e8b0…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 52019ms |
| 117 | `81db15ff…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 19742ms |
| 118 | `61b0946a…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 28927ms |
| 119 | `61e7b9c6…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 25477ms |
| 120 | `c9bf9801…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 4 | 4/10 | 29170ms |
| 121 | `f1be6436…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 5 | 3/10 | 36393ms |
| 122 | `41f6ef59…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 26700ms |
| 123 | `a0552909…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 7 | 7/10 | 68520ms |
| 124 | `6d2c8e55…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 11 | 5/10 | 50769ms |
| 125 | `4b98ccce…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 47260ms |
| 126 | `60221cd0…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 47272ms |
| 127 | `ef8719da…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 55232ms |
| 128 | `3baa0009…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 31883ms |
| 129 | `5d0feb24…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 29425ms |
| 130 | `6974adea…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 51089ms |
| 131 | `1a78e076…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 36636ms |
| 132 | `1b9ec237…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 39615ms |
| 133 | `0112fc9b…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 25294ms |
| 134 | `772e7524…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 23240ms |
| 135 | `e6429658…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 44677ms |
| 136 | `b5d2e6f1…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 28661ms |
| 137 | `f841ddcf…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 69571ms |
| 138 | `47ef842d…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 31367ms |
| 139 | `1137e2bb…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 8/10 | 23921ms |
| 140 | `c3525d4d…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 39302ms |
| 141 | `9a0d8d36…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 23830ms |
| 142 | `664a42e5…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 33801ms |
| 143 | `feb5eefc…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 49570ms |
| 144 | `3600de06…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 7/10 | 20066ms |
| 145 | `c657103b…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 31281ms |
| 146 | `ae0c1093…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 49312ms |
| 147 | `f9f82549…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 8 | 7/10 | 37711ms |
| 148 | `57b2cdf2…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 8 | 7/10 | 36716ms |
| 149 | `84322284…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 41774ms |
| 150 | `a46d5cd2…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 7 | 5/10 | 67859ms |
| 151 | `6241e678…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 3/10 | 49768ms |
| 152 | `e14e32ba…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 6 | 6/10 | 47405ms |
| 153 | `b1a79ce1…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 29665ms |
| 154 | `e4f664ea…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 37287ms |
| 155 | `a079d38f…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 22198ms |
| 156 | `02aa1805…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 39032ms |
| 157 | `fd6129bd…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 34216ms |
| 158 | `ce864f41…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 23310ms |
| 159 | `58ac1cc5…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 5 | 7/10 | 72368ms |
| 160 | `3c19c6d1…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 25935ms |
| 161 | `a99d85fc…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 37985ms |
| 162 | `55ddb773…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 38696ms |
| 163 | `1e5a1d7f…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 22871ms |
| 164 | `0419f1c3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 30895ms |
| 165 | `ed2bc14c…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 24632ms |
| 166 | `46bc7238…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 7 | 5/10 | 36215ms |
| 167 | `2d06bc0a…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 29459ms |
| 168 | `fd3ad420…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 26710ms |
| 169 | `0818571f…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 13 | 5/10 | 58145ms |
| 170 | `6074bba3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 5 | 5/10 | 44206ms |
| 171 | `5ad0c554…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 23706ms |
| 172 | `11593a50…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 3 | 3/10 | 48552ms |
| 173 | `94925f49…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 5 | 4/10 | 36477ms |
| 174 | `90f37ff3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 34098ms |
| 175 | `d3d255b2…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 54438ms |
| 176 | `403b9234…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 26711ms |
| 177 | `1bff4551…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 50032ms |
| 178 | `650adcb1…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 25676ms |
| 179 | `01d7e53e…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 37357ms |
| 180 | `a73fbc98…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 33635ms |
| 181 | `0ec25916…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 32144ms |
| 182 | `116e791e…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 46891ms |
| 183 | `dd724c67…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 43165ms |
| 184 | `7151c60a…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 33415ms |
| 185 | `90edba97…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 26893ms |
| 186 | `91060ff0…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 47895ms |
| 187 | `8384083a…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 42321ms |
| 188 | `045aba2e…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 27209ms |
| 189 | `f2986c1f…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 21383ms |
| 190 | `ffed32d8…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 43839ms |
| 191 | `b3573f20…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 57354ms |
| 192 | `a69be28f…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 31200ms |
| 193 | `788d2bc6…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 33962ms |
| 194 | `74ed1dc7…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 24099ms |
| 195 | `69a8ef86…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 29052ms |
| 196 | `ab81b076…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 37750ms |
| 197 | `d7cfae6f…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 45225ms |
| 198 | `19403010…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 2/10 | 23917ms |
| 199 | `7ed932dd…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 50089ms |
| 200 | `105f8ad0…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 24099ms |
| 201 | `b57efde3…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 21367ms |
| 202 | `15d37511…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 22994ms |
| 203 | `bb863dd9…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 29943ms |
| 204 | `fe0d3941…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 47602ms |
| 205 | `6a900a40…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 4/10 | 28800ms |
| 206 | `9efbcd35…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 31246ms |
| 207 | `1d4672c8…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 33263ms |
| 208 | `4de6a529…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 43442ms |
| 209 | `4c4dc603…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 50390ms |
| 210 | `bb499d9c…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 30225ms |
| 211 | `5349dd7b…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 20514ms |
| 212 | `a4a9195c…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 26279ms |
| 213 | `552b7dd0…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 23999ms |
| 214 | `11dcc268…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 2/10 | 59389ms |
| 215 | `76418a2c…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 7/10 | 22537ms |
| 216 | `0e386e32…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 7 | 6/10 | 27145ms |
| 217 | `7de33b48…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | Yes | 6 | 6/10 | 29517ms |
| 218 | `854f3814…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 46174ms |
| 219 | `4122f866…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | Yes | 7 | 5/10 | 36870ms |
| 220 | `2c249e0f…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 30608ms |

## QA Issues

### ❌ `83d10b06…` — score 4/10
- Sample selection marks nearly all rows, not a sample aligned to calculated size.
- Column naming and placement do not match required columns J and K.
- Calculated sample size is not rounded or clearly applied to selection.
  > 💡 Align column structure to requirements, round and justify sample size, and select only the required number of rows.

### ✅ `7b08cd4d…` — score 5/10
- Expenses section by required categories is missing from the workbook.
- Income and costs are not separated by source with a combined total column.
- Total Net Revenue is not clearly calculated or presented as a summed figure.
  > 💡 Add full expense details and source-based columns with clear totals to meet all requirements.

### ❌ `7d7fc9a7…` — score 3/10
- Missing invoice-level amortization details, periods, monthly expense, and remaining balances.
- Prepaid Summary lacks year-to-date prepaid expense and amortization totals.
- Schedules are aggregated and calibrated, not built from provided invoices as required.
  > 💡 Rebuild schedules using invoice-level data with explicit amortization logic and complete summary metrics.

### ❌ `43dc9778…` — score 3/10
- Form 1040 is not completed with amounts from provided tax documents.
- Required schedules and forms for e-filing are missing.
- PDF contains a summary page instead of an actual tax return.
  > 💡 Prepare a fully populated 2024 Form 1040 with all required schedules using the provided source documents.

### ❌ `ee09d943…` — score 4/10
- Tab names are cryptic IDs, not clear, descriptive schedule names.
- TOC source file names do not match exact required filenames.
- Workbook does not mirror March template structure or tab order clearly.
  > 💡 Rename tabs clearly, correct TOC filenames, and realign structure to the March template.

### ❌ `f84ea6ac…` — score 3/10
- The Word document lacks the required summary table and study-specific content.
- No five academic articles are identified or reviewed as required.
- Online research requirement is not met due to lack of cited sources.
  > 💡 Include a complete one-page table summarizing five specific post-2020 open-access studies with citations.

### ✅ `a328feea…` — score 8/10
- Procedure lacks guidance if Supervisor or Team Lead is unreachable.
- Document does not specify consequences for non-compliance with reporting requirements.
  > 💡 Add an escalation contact and brief non-compliance consequences to strengthen clarity and accountability.

### ✅ `27e8912c…` — score 5/10
- Organizational Action Items Word document is missing required tracking table and process section.
- Second deliverable is mislabeled as a checklist instead of an action items tracker.
- Checklist does not clearly cite or link the NIH source within the document.
  > 💡 Create a separate Word action items tracker with required columns, process steps, and clear NIH citation.

### ✅ `17111c03…` — score 7/10
- An extra DOCX file was produced that was not requested.
- The schedule dates are in 2025 while the memo is dated 2026.
  > 💡 Align schedule dates with the memo date and omit unrequested file formats.

### ❌ `c44e9b62…` — score 4/10
- FTE Excel report contains incorrect data, including negative planned FTE values.
- Excel sheet includes erroneous header and summary rows as data entries.
- Minimum 4% FTE reduction is not clearly calculated or demonstrated.
  > 💡 Correct the FTE report calculations and clearly show total current versus reduced FTEs meeting the 4% target.

### ✅ `99ac6944…` — score 6/10
- Required PDF deliverable was not provided; DOCX was delivered instead.
- Selected analog mixer lacks onboard compression as required.
- Product links are placeholders and not actual URLs.
  > 💡 Revise with a true PDF, correct analog mixer with compression, and include verified retailer links.

### ✅ `f9a1c16c…` — score 6/10
- PDF appears text-only without required graphic icons for stage elements.
- Output list contains unclear entry 'Guitar Wedge Drums' and lacks clarity.
- Wedge numbering counterclockwise from stage right is not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Add clear graphic icons, correct output labeling, and explicitly show wedge numbering order on the plot.

### ✅ `38889c3b…` — score 6/10
- Provided drum reference track was not used as required.
- Placeholder synthesized rhythm violates tight synchronization requirement.
- No verification of exact song length and key modulation provided.
  > 💡 Rebuild the instrumental using the actual provided drum reference track and confirm timing, keys, and duration.

### ❌ `ff85ee58…` — score 3/10
- Final mixed audio file was not produced.
- Task required audio processing, but only a planning document was delivered.
- Output does not meet loudness, format, or sync specifications.
  > 💡 Provide the required audio files and deliver the finalized 24-bit/48kHz mixed WAV output.

### ❌ `4b894ae3…` — score 4/10
- Final WAV is a placeholder, not an actually edited and mixed audio file.
- Required bass corrections were documented but not audibly performed.
- Delivered filename uses underscores instead of the specified spaces.
  > 💡 Provide a real edited bass track mixed with stems and export using the exact specified filename.

### ✅ `1b1ade2d…` — score 8/10
- Text response summarizes deliverable rather than outlining key workflow elements.
- Claimed 2–3 page length is not explicitly verified.
- Explicit change approval thresholds and financial limits are not clearly defined.
  > 💡 Add a concise approval matrix with thresholds for design and price changes.

### ✅ `93b336f3…` — score 7/10
- Detailed per-unit cost calculations and assumptions are not explicitly shown.
- Unrequested joint venture ownership split is introduced without justification.
- Cost analysis lacks a clear table summarizing current versus localised costs.
  > 💡 Add a concise cost breakdown table and clarify assumptions while removing unrequested structural details.

### ✅ `15ddd28d…` — score 8/10
- Text response is generic and adds little beyond file description.
- Preview shows truncated section, risking perceived incompleteness.
  > 💡 Ensure the text response briefly summarizes key strategic decisions and outcomes.

### ✅ `24d1e93f…` — score 7/10
- No explicit assumptions list provided as requested in the task.
- Summary lacks a clear final supplier nomination decision.
- R&D and tooling amortization calculations are not transparently shown.
  > 💡 Add an assumptions sheet, show cost build-ups clearly, and state a single recommended supplier.

### ❌ `05389f78…` — score 3/10
- CPO report lacks cost comparisons, INR calculations, and quotation-based analysis.
- CPO report is not 2–3 pages and lacks required detail.
- Termination email is not addressed to design head and relationship manager.
  > 💡 Expand the CPO report with full INR cost analysis and explicitly address all required recipients.

### ✅ `575f8679…` — score 6/10
- Data sources and roles are insufficiently specified.
- Data analysis methods lack detail on tracking change over time.
- Appendix tools lack sample questions, adaptations, or direct links.
  > 💡 Expand methods and appendix with specific data sources, analytic steps, and fuller instrument documentation.

### ✅ `a74ead3b…` — score 6/10
- Admits inability to access required manual, risking misalignment with mandated session content.
- No explicit confirmation that icebreakers and wrap-up slides match manual requirements.
- Visual accessibility and neutral imagery are not clearly documented or verified.
  > 💡 Revise presentations after directly reviewing the manual to ensure strict content alignment.

### ✅ `bbe0a93b…` — score 6/10
- Resource guide not based on an open web search as required.
- Several required resource categories are missing from the resource guide.
- Spanish assessment retains English section headers instead of full translation.
  > 💡 Redo the resource guide using a documented web search and complete missing categories and translations.

### ❌ `85d95ce5…` — score 4/10
- Required PDF titled J.S. was not produced.
- Template placeholders remain and SCHOOL name requirement was violated.
- Numerous sections contain unfinished template text and missing evaluation details.
  > 💡 Complete all sections, fix placeholders, and submit a finalized PDF meeting all specifications.

### ✅ `76d10872…` — score 7/10
- PDF omits jurisdiction information present in DOCX.
- PDF lacks income withholding detail included in DOCX.
- Text response does not summarize key data values.
  > 💡 Ensure PDF and DOCX content match and include all Case Creation Guide fields.

### ✅ `36d567ba…` — score 7/10
- Question 11 appears incomplete or truncated in the document.
- Question 8 references 2 CFR Part 200 generally, not a specific relevant section.
- Question 11 does not clearly present a two-part Yes/No and detail format.
  > 💡 Complete and revise Question 11 and add a specific Uniform Guidance citation for Question 8.

### ✅ `7bbfcfe9…` — score 8/10
- SCRA-12c loosely paraphrases the statutory acceleration prohibition rather than tracking §3937(c) language.
- SCRA-14 addresses credit reporting, which §3919 does not explicitly reference.
- SCRA-17 tests policy existence rather than account-level compliance.
  > 💡 Tighten statutory alignment by mirroring §3937 and §3919 language and focusing on account-level actions.

### ✅ `2696757c…` — score 8/10
- An extra DOCX file was produced despite requesting a single PDF deliverable.
- Header uses a hyphen instead of the specified en dash nomenclature.
- Text response claims single PDF delivery but multiple files were generated.
  > 💡 Deliver only one PDF with the exact specified header formatting.

### ❌ `dfb4e0cd…` — score 4/10
- Spending Rate Analysis column is blank and lacks Fast or Slow Spending labels.
- File includes awards that do not meet fast or slow spending criteria.
- Output does not filter records to only qualifying awards as requested.
  > 💡 Populate the analysis column and filter the file to only awards meeting defined spending rate criteria.

### ✅ `4c18ebae…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes deliverables but omits actual SAR narrative content.
- Transaction dates extend beyond stated account closure of August 2024.
- Transaction locations show Virginia activity inconsistent with known business operations.
  > 💡 Reconcile transaction data timelines and locations, and summarize key SAR findings directly in the response.

### ✅ `cebf301e…` — score 8/10
- No explicit diagrams for authentication or access control flows.
  > 💡 Add simple architecture and auth flow diagrams to improve implementation clarity.

### ✅ `c2e8f271…` — score 8/10
- Monorepo-specific standards and boundaries are not addressed.
- Neon-specific Postgres operational considerations are not mentioned.
- Branch naming guidance lacks concrete examples or allowed type list.
  > 💡 Add a short section covering monorepo practices, Neon usage, and clearer branch naming examples.

### ✅ `2ea2e5b5…` — score 8/10
- Text response lacks explicit confirmation of final strategic level classifications.
- No direct reference to specific Excel sheet or columns used.
  > 💡 Briefly document classification mappings and data source details in the summary or appendix.

### ✅ `c357f0e2…` — score 5/10
- Test cases are repetitive and use generic placeholder scenarios.
- User actions and expected results lack module-specific detail.
- Cross-browser testing and some modules are not explicitly covered.
  > 💡 Expand test cases with specific actions, distinct scenarios, and full module and browser coverage.

### ❌ `a45bc83b…` — score 4/10
- Required PDF architecture diagram was not delivered.
- Proof of Concept Word document is missing entirely.
- Architecture diagram DOCX lacks descriptive content.
  > 💡 Provide the missing POC document and replace the diagram with a proper PDF using GCP icons.

### ❌ `a10ec48c…` — score 3/10
- Tables lack required columns and restaurant rows.
- Restaurants are not sourced or verified from specified websites.
- Directions, hours, descriptions, and categories are missing.
  > 💡 Populate complete tables with verified downtown restaurants and all required column details.

### ✅ `fccaa4a1…` — score 6/10
- Final deliverable is DOCX, not the required PDF format.
- Age requirement excludes the 16-year-old participant.
- Image is a placeholder without documented royalty-free source.
  > 💡 Export a corrected PDF, align age requirements, and include a properly sourced royalty-free image.

### ❌ `f5d428fd…` — score 4/10
- Final deliverable is DOCX, not the required two-page PDF.
- Destination descriptions are one to two sentences, not the required three to four.
- Images are placeholders without verified royalty-free sourcing.
  > 💡 Convert to a two-page PDF, expand each destination description, and include properly sourced royalty-free images.

### ✅ `2fa8e956…` — score 6/10
- Required Georgia fonts and purple grape variety text are not applied.
- Footer titled 'Napa Valley Wineries' is missing or not visible.
- Sources and Google Maps citations for distances and times are not included.
  > 💡 Apply specified formatting, add the footer, and include clear source and Google Maps citations.

### ✅ `0e4fe8cd…` — score 6/10
- Incorrect airport code used for Istanbul arrival and departure.
- Several service providers and links appear unverified or placeholder.
- Private flight details lack tail number, crew, and FBO specifics.
  > 💡 Verify all factual details and enrich aviation, security, and networking specifics to UHNW standards.

### ✅ `a0ef404e…` — score 9/10
- Minor typographical truncation appears in one troubleshooting heading.
  > 💡 Proofread the document once more to correct minor typos before final distribution.

### ✅ `b7a5912e…` — score 6/10
- Payment method revenues do not reconcile with total revenue.
- Booking source revenues sum to less than reported total revenue.
- Category utilization rates are shown as fractions instead of percentages.
  > 💡 Reconcile revenue totals across all summaries and present utilization rates as percentages.

### ✅ `aa071045…` — score 6/10
- Summary sheet has no data rows.
- Total damage revenue is presented as a column header, not a value.
- Excel summary structure may confuse management interpretation.
  > 💡 Add a populated summary table with a clearly labeled total damage revenue value.

### ✅ `476db143…` — score 8/10
- Some inspection dates differ from the stated tentative 9/23/25 without explanation.
- One inspection is scheduled after the unit move-out date.
  > 💡 Briefly note in the tracker why any inspection dates differ from the tentative schedule.

### ❌ `61f546a8…` — score 3/10
- Required PDF was not produced; only a DOCX file was delivered.
- Report lacks vendor details, apartment numbers, dates, and appliance information.
- Guidelines and reference files were not applied to create schedules.
  > 💡 Produce a complete PDF report using reference data with detailed schedules, dates, and compliance with guidelines.

### ✅ `f3351922…` — score 7/10
- Email appears truncated and ends mid-sentence.
- Professional closing and signature are missing.
- Placeholder client name remains unreplaced.
  > 💡 Complete the email with a proper conclusion, signature, and finalized client details.

### ✅ `61717508…` — score 5/10
- Required PDFs were not delivered; files are DOCX instead.
- Training deck does not meet the ~10 page length requirement.
- Visual structure and engagement elements are minimal.
  > 💡 Convert both files to PDFs, expand content to ~10 pages, and add simple visuals for engagement.

### ❌ `0ed38524…` — score 4/10
- Files delivered as DOCX instead of required PDF format.
- Talking points contain duplicate categories and grammatical errors.
- Response claims completion despite unmet PDF requirement.
  > 💡 Convert documents to PDFs and proofread content, consolidating categories and correcting errors.

### ✅ `87da214f…` — score 7/10
- Slide content cannot be verified due to unavailable preview.
- No evidence shown of specific dollar and percentage figures.
  > 💡 Include a brief summary slide or appendix text validating key financial figures.

### ❌ `d025a41c…` — score 4/10
- Alternative responses are repetitive and often unrelated to the cited statements.
- Some problematic statements are misidentified, including customer messages labeled as support.
- Explanations are generic and do not address each statement specifically.
  > 💡 Revise each case with accurate support statements, tailored explanations, and relevant alternative responses.

### ❌ `401a07f1…` — score 2/10
- No 500-word editorial content is actually provided.
- No Word document file is produced despite requirement.
- Missing references, links, call to action, and completed narrative.
  > 💡 Provide a complete 500-word editorial in Guardian style and include a delivered DOCX file with links.

### ✅ `afe56d05…` — score 5/10
- Document appears far shorter than the required 2,200–2,300 words.
- External resources are not clearly hyperlinked or explicitly credited.
- Length and depth per section may be insufficient for training use.
  > 💡 Expand each section to meet word count and add explicit hyperlinked citations to required sources.

### ✅ `9a8c8e28…` — score 5/10
- Files are DOCX, not the required PDF format.
- Framework guide lacks a visible bibliography with external links.
- Quiz is too short to adequately assess understanding and risk.
  > 💡 Convert files to PDF, expand the quiz, and add a linked bibliography section.

### ✅ `3a4c347c…` — score 7/10
- Draft schedule lacks week-by-week country assignments and specific publication dates.
- Reference boilerplate document is not explicitly incorporated or cited.
- VT, radio and podcast re-versioning details lack production specifics.
  > 💡 Add a detailed weekly schedule with countries, cite the boilerplate, and expand broadcast production plans.

### ✅ `ec2fccc9…` — score 6/10
- Secondary keywords list is missing after the article.
- No visible links to referenced artists’ NFT collections or social profiles.
- Required news article links with SEO-friendly anchors are not evident.
  > 💡 Add the missing SEO keyword list, artist and news links, and verify all required elements are explicitly included.

### ✅ `8c8fc328…` — score 8/10
- Script does not explicitly incorporate or reference the provided voiceover document content.
  > 💡 Align sections more directly with the supplied voiceover script to ensure full client consistency.

### ❌ `e222075d…` — score 4/10
- No 30-second H.264 MP4 video export was delivered.
- No actual scratch voiceover audio was produced.
- Visuals are described conceptually instead of assembled in an edit.
  > 💡 Produce and deliver the actual 30-second MP4 edit with scratch VO and graphic cards included.

### ❌ `c94452e4…` — score 3/10
- No actual video or audio files were produced or attached.
- Stock footage and music sourcing requirements were not fulfilled.
- Deliverable relies on placeholders instead of specified assets.
  > 💡 Produce and deliver the actual 15-second MP4 using real stock footage, supers, and music as specified.

### ❌ `75401f7c…` — score 3/10
- No final edited showreel MP4 was delivered.
- No evidence of editing, sequencing, or audio placement was provided.
- Output repeats source files instead of a composed reel.
  > 💡 Produce and deliver a single 01:20 max edited showreel MP4 meeting all technical and creative requirements.

### ❌ `a941b6d8…` — score 3/10
- Did not use provided base and overlay clips as required.
- No actual compositing, tracking, or masking performed on source footage.
- Demo and breakdown replace, rather than fulfill, the specified deliverable.
  > 💡 Provide a final composite video built from the specified source clips meeting all technical requirements.

### ❌ `8079e27d…` — score 4/10
- Uses illustrative placeholder data, not publicly sourced live market data.
- Does not document data sources or retrieval methodology.
- Sector classification labeled sub-sectors without clarification.
  > 💡 Rebuild the Excel using real publicly available S&P 500 data with cited sources.

### ✅ `e21cd746…` — score 8/10
- Some private targets lack listed key customers.
- Public comparables missing P/E multiple for GXO Logistics.
  > 💡 Add missing customer details and complete valuation multiples for all public comps.

### ❌ `9e8607e7…` — score 4/10
- Required PDF export was not delivered.
- Deliverable did not fully meet original task requirements.
- Presentation content and slide count were not verifiable.
  > 💡 Provide a complete ~30-slide deck and export it as a PDF as requested.

### ✅ `c7d83f01…` — score 6/10
- Notebook appears minimal and likely lacks comprehensive multi-method implementations.
- Visualizations are limited; convergence and runtime benchmarks are missing.
- Monte Carlo American pricing validation and accuracy analysis are insufficiently demonstrated.
  > 💡 Expand the notebook with full implementations, benchmarking, and multiple diagnostic plots before production consideration.

### ✅ `46b34f78…` — score 5/10
- Does not leverage or cite the provided reference data as required.
- Bond analyses lack specific issuer names, metrics, and quantitative support.
- Trading strategy recommendations are high-level and not actionable for H1 2025.
  > 💡 Incorporate reference data, name specific issuers with metrics, and add quantified, time-bound trade ideas.

### ✅ `a1963a68…` — score 6/10
- Deliverable is PPTX, not the required PDF format.
- PDF export was deferred rather than completed as specified.
- Compliance with cited Korean public data sources is not explicitly evidenced.
  > 💡 Provide a finalized PDF with explicit source citations and confirm all requirements are met.

### ❌ `5f6c57dd…` — score 2/10
- No Excel workbook or worksheets were actually produced.
- Output contains placeholder narrative instead of completed financial models.
- Python code is incomplete and does not generate required schedules.
  > 💡 Produce a complete Excel workbook with all five fully built worksheets and functional dropdowns.

### ❌ `b39a5aa7…` — score 3/10
- No calculations populated; all quarterly totals and YoY growth are blank.
- Missing future two-year projections and adjustable drivers for scenario analysis.
- Compensation summary by type and detailed calculation logic are incomplete.
  > 💡 Populate full calculation logic, add multi-year projection inputs, and complete quarterly summaries with YoY growth.

### ✅ `b78fd844…` — score 6/10
- Required PDF version was not delivered.
- Task referenced an attached file that was not explicitly incorporated.
- Generated text response summarizes work instead of presenting analysis.
  > 💡 Provide the final report as a PDF and explicitly reference any attached source materials used.

### ✅ `4520f882…` — score 5/10
- No visible formulas or validations to flag CBA conflicts.
- Weekly_Input requires manual base wage entry instead of using Rates sheet.
- Payroll_Calc lacks demonstrated linkage to inputs and rate calculations.
  > 💡 Add clear formulas, validations, and conditional formatting tied to the CBA rates and rules.

### ✅ `ec591973…` — score 7/10
- Slide content is not summarized, limiting verification of strategy depth.
- No explicit confirmation the slide is single-page.
- Channel-specific tactics are not visible in the text response.
  > 💡 Include a brief bullet summary of slide content to enable clear QA validation.

### ✅ `62f04c2f…` — score 7/10
- Excel form lacks signature and date fields for sales rep, GM, and Sales Manager.
- Excel form is missing the required freight prepayment and restocking fee notice.
- Approval and authorization sections are incomplete for management review.
  > 💡 Revise the Excel form to add signatures, dates, and the required freight and restocking note.

### ❌ `3f821c2d…` — score 3/10
- Used assumed sales and receipts instead of fixed provided plan and constraints.
- Missing omni-level combined flow, last-year comparison, and seasonal turn calculations.
- Spreadsheet lacks complete formulas and required inventory targets verification.
  > 💡 Rebuild the Excel using provided data, include omni and LY tables, and validate all constraints with formulas.

### ✅ `e996036e…` — score 5/10
- No quarterly sales or shipment breakdown as required by reference assumptions.
- Cash flow timing by payment terms is not modeled or visualized.
- Visual chart evidence is unclear or missing in the workbook preview.
  > 💡 Add quarterly cash flow modeling and clearly labeled charts reflecting payment term impacts.

### ❌ `6dcae3f5…` — score 3/10
- ACGME PGY attainment analysis not completed as required.
- Excel lacks yearly intervals, totals, and benchmarks for each PGY.
- Data compilation from provided Key Indicators.xlsx not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Rebuild the Excel using source data, include all PGYs, totals, intervals, and complete ACGME attainment analysis.

### ✅ `1aecc095…` — score 6/10
- Telehealth Roadmap lacks a Visio-style visual workflow and appears text-only.
- Roadmap content does not clearly start from MA placing the patient call.
- File naming deviates slightly from requested names without spaces.

### ❌ `0353ee0c…` — score 3/10
- Did not compile exhaustive presumptive exposures, conditions, locations, and dates as required.
- Delivered DOCX instead of requested comprehensive PDF document.
- Content is an index of links rather than consolidated information from Document B.
  > 💡 Review all Document B links and compile a complete, organized PDF listing exposures, conditions, locations, and dates.

### ✅ `40a8c4b1…` — score 6/10
- In-Service Study Session placement in late February is not demonstrated.
- All Periop Meeting appears scheduled in consecutive weeks rather than semi-annually.
- Saved filename differs from specified "Grand Rounds 2025" naming.
  > 💡 Verify February scheduling, correct All Periop frequency, and align the filename exactly with instructions.

### ❌ `4d1a8410…` — score 4/10
- Main schedule document lacks required detailed table with rooms, times, applicants, breaks, and lunch.
- Personal itineraries omit full-day activities including tours, lunch, breaks, and buffers.
- Interview timings do not demonstrate compliance with specified break and physician constraints.
  > 💡 Rebuild the schedule and itineraries with complete tables and explicit timing aligned to all stated constraints.

### ✅ `8c823e32…` — score 6/10
- PDF is only one page and lacks comprehensive policy detail.
- PDF does not mirror the full DOCX content required for manual inclusion.
- Operational guidance in PDF is summarized rather than directive and detailed.
  > 💡 Regenerate the PDF to fully match the comprehensive DOCX policy content and formatting.

### ✅ `eb54f575…` — score 7/10
- Terminal ballistics section lacks comparative analysis against alternative calibers.
- Tradeoffs such as over-penetration and ammunition cost are not addressed.
- Rifle quantity calculation rounding is not explicitly justified.
  > 💡 Expand the caliber section with comparative FBI data and explicitly address cost and over-penetration tradeoffs.

### ❌ `11e1b169…` — score 4/10
- Required PDF format not delivered; only a DOCX file was provided.
- Guide does not clearly meet the specified two-page length requirement.
  > 💡 Convert the document to a two-page PDF and resubmit with verified formatting.

### ✅ `a95a5829…` — score 9/10
- Record retention timeframe is not explicitly specified.
  > 💡 Add a defined retention period for training records to strengthen compliance guidance.

### ✅ `22c0809b…` — score 6/10
- Deliverable is DOCX, not the required PDF format.
- Signature and date submitted section appears incomplete or truncated.
- Form length may not meet the specified 2–4 page requirement.
  > 💡 Convert to a complete 2–4 page PDF and finalize the signature and submission fields.

### ✅ `bf68f2ad…` — score 5/10
- Planned capacity incorrectly uses 60 hours per week instead of daily-based weekly capacity.
- Excel plan never models reducing days or overtime after buffer is achieved.
- Catch-up plan assumptions are not explicitly tied to provided production rates.
  > 💡 Recalculate weekly capacity from 30 hours per day and add scenarios showing reduced workdays after backlog elimination.

### ✅ `efca245f…` — score 6/10
- Excel scenarios do not show Truck Grill Guard production or weekly requirements.
- Expanded capacity scenario uses 170 units/day without justification against stated 135-unit upgrade.
- Spreadsheet lacks explicit stat holiday exclusions and cumulative totals clarity.
  > 💡 Revise spreadsheets to align capacities, include grill guard plans, holidays, and explicit cumulative PO tracking.

### ❌ `9e39df84…` — score 4/10
- Week 1 data not populated from provided reference file as required.
- Dashboard worksheet lacks PivotTables, charts, KPIs, and visual layout.
- Data validation for week or week-range selection is missing.
  > 💡 Populate Week 1 data and fully build the Dashboard with pivots, charts, KPIs, and controls.

### ✅ `68d8d901…` — score 7/10
- No explicit throughput or batch-capacity calculations proving 250,000 lb feasibility.
- Production assignments list roles only, not individual personnel-level allocation.
- Production sequences lack quantitative link between cycle times and weekly output.
  > 💡 Add capacity math and per-dryer output calculations to clearly validate the four-week production target.

### ✅ `1752cb53…` — score 5/10
- Minimum three changeovers per press are not clearly planned or evidenced.
- Most active SKUs lack populated planning data despite validation intent.
- Team member assignments use numeric placeholders instead of roster names.
  > 💡 Fully populate required SKUs, validate changeovers per press, and assign actual team members from the roster.

### ❌ `bd72994f…` — score 3/10
- PDF was required but only a PPTX file was delivered.
- No appointment outreach template text or DOCX file was provided.
- Brand and specific 2025 resort collection were not identified.
  > 💡 Provide a true PDF lookbook and include a clear, reusable outreach template referencing a specific 2025 resort collection.

### ✅ `211d0093…` — score 5/10
- PDF contains formatting artifacts and truncated task text.
- Manager sign-off section is not clearly placed at the very end.
- Tasks are listed as bullets instead of individual assignable rows.
  > 💡 Clean formatting, fix truncated text, and present each task as a table row with final sign-off.

### ✅ `d4525420…` — score 8/10
- Text response summarizes deliverable instead of presenting the required paragraph.
- Original task did not explicitly request a Word document.
  > 💡 Include the full 5–7 sentence paragraph directly in the text response.

### ❌ `45c6237b…` — score 4/10
- Output required PDF but only PPTX was delivered.
- No evidence images from ORDER LIST were included.
- Sizing and quantity conformance to historical rules not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Export the presentation to PDF and clearly show images and size-level quantities per SKU.

### ✅ `cecac8f9…` — score 6/10
- Team Launch deck content is too minimal for an instructional, all‑weekend reference.
- Promotional offers from reference materials are not clearly detailed in the launch deck.
- Plan and deck are only one page each, lacking expected depth for leadership use.
  > 💡 Expand both PDFs with clearer promotional mechanics, visuals, and more detailed guidance.

### ✅ `0fad6023…` — score 6/10
- No visible calculation of total used versus available 24-foot FSC space.
- Visual tab does not adjust column widths to reflect pan size differences.
- POG lacks clear summary fields for remaining space and overage warnings.
  > 💡 Add automatic totals, remaining inches, and dynamic visual scaling to fully meet planning requirements.

### ❌ `02314fc6…` — score 3/10
- Required PDF deliverable was not produced, only a DOCX file.
- Text response contains technical code instead of a professional narrative.
- Scoring thresholds and corrective action workflow are not clearly documented.
  > 💡 Provide a finalized PDF checklist with clear scoring rules and a professional submission summary.

### ✅ `6436ff9e…` — score 8/10
- A word appears truncated in the testimonial permission section.
- Consent options for testimonial usage are not clearly specified.
  > 💡 Proofread the final section and add clear yes/no consent checkboxes for marketing use.

### ✅ `8a7b6fca…` — score 7/10
- PDF appears largely text-based without clear standard process mapping symbols.
- Manual processing workflow lacks detailed standardized handling steps.
- Failure rerouting paths are not visually explicit or directional.
  > 💡 Enhance the PDF with swimlanes, standard symbols, and clear arrows for failure rerouting.

### ✅ `40a99a31…` — score 7/10
- Design report delivered as DOCX instead of required PDF.
- Safety and IO compatibility logic lacks detailed mapping description.
  > 💡 Convert report to PDF and add explicit safety and IO mapping logic section.

### ❌ `b9665ca1…` — score 3/10
- Provided PDF is invalid and not a readable schematic file.
- No verifiable evidence schematic matches detailed pin, wiring, and labeling requirements.
- Output does not resolve conflicting series versus parallel E-stop requirements.
  > 💡 Provide a valid one-page PDF schematic clearly implementing all specified wiring and pinout details.

### ✅ `c6269101…` — score 6/10
- Text response is repetitive and lacks specific analytical findings.
- No explicit evidence the provided Excel data was analyzed.
- Stability assessment methods and conclusions are not clearly documented.
  > 💡 Include concrete results, methods used, and explicit references to the source data and findings.

### ✅ `be830ca0…` — score 5/10
- Missing required 1-sample hypothesis test output and chart.
- A3 summary sections and baseline-only I-MR chart are not evidenced.
- Final DMAIC timeline slide with tollgate status is not confirmed.
  > 💡 Add missing statistical tests, complete the A3 content, and verify all required slides explicitly match requirements.

### ❌ `cd9efc18…` — score 4/10
- Required PDF was not produced; only a DOCX file was delivered.
- Deliverable does not meet the requested 8–11 page length.
- Texas self-proving affidavit language is missing.
  > 💡 Convert the will to an 8–11 page PDF and add a Texas-compliant self-proving affidavit.

### ✅ `a97369c7…` — score 8/10
- Analysis of DGCL Section 218 stockholder agreements is not explicitly addressed.
- Senate Bill 313 discussion is brief and lacks concrete application.
- Text response summarizes deliverable instead of substantive analysis.
  > 💡 Add a short Section 218 analysis and tie Senate Bill 313 more directly to the facts.

### ❌ `3f625cb2…` — score 4/10
- Required PDF memorandum was not produced.
- Deliverable does not meet specified file format requirements.
- Client request explicitly required a PDF, not a Word document.
  > 💡 Convert the memorandum to PDF and deliver it in the required format.

### ✅ `aad21e4c…` — score 7/10
- Anti-dilution and minimum ownership mechanics lack detailed top-up formula and exempt issuance carve-outs.
- Minority investor consent rights scope and procedures are not clearly enumerated.
- Draft contains a truncation/typo in the pre-emptive rights section.
  > 💡 Clarify anti-dilution mechanics, fully list consent matters, and correct drafting errors.

### ✅ `8314d1b1…` — score 6/10
- Memo appears to lack specific case and statutory citations.
- Analysis depth seems limited given only ten paragraphs total.
- March 2025 DGCL amendments are discussed only at a high level.
  > 💡 Add detailed citations, expand analysis sections, and more fully address DGCL Section 144 amendments.

### ✅ `5e2b6aab…` — score 5/10
- Required ANSI B PDF drawings were delivered as DOCX instead of PDF.
- Thermal performance across -20°C to 40°C is not addressed or validated.
- STEP models appear placeholder-level with minimal geometric detail.
  > 💡 Provide proper PDF drawings, add thermal design justification, and include detailed, manufacturable STEP geometry.

### ❌ `46fc494e…` — score 4/10
- Back-face temperature remains 25 C despite extreme heating, indicating a likely modeling error.
- No numerical node temperatures at specified times are reported, only plots.
- Model assumptions and stability verification for the transient solver are not documented.
  > 💡 Recompute with a verified transient conduction solver and report numeric node temperatures at required times.

### ✅ `3940b7e7…` — score 6/10
- Convergence criteria and engineering goals driving convergence are not specified.
- Material properties and mesh size metrics are described only qualitatively.
- Field-variable table omits velocity components required by the task.
  > 💡 Add explicit convergence targets, mesh statistics, detailed material properties, and complete field-variable tables.

### ✅ `8077e700…` — score 6/10
- Required PDF report was not delivered.
- Results lack explicit time-to-peak hardness comparison for both steels.
- Graphs and tables are referenced but not fully included in the report.
  > 💡 Provide a complete PDF report with detailed comparative analysis, tables, and figures for both materials.

### ✅ `5a2d70da…` — score 5/10
- Master Tool List lacks subtotal and grand total with Suffolk County sales tax.
- Manufacturing Steps sheet has malformed headers and unclear operation sequencing.
- Purchase links are placeholders, not valid supplier pages.
  > 💡 Add proper cost totals with tax, fix the process sheet structure, and replace all placeholder links.

### ✅ `74d6e8b0…` — score 6/10
- Guidelines lack specific HT dosing, formulations, and titration details.
- Risk stratification, contraindications, and comorbidity management are insufficient for virtual care.
- References lack in-text citations and comprehensive evidence coverage.
  > 💡 Expand with detailed regimens, monitoring protocols, telehealth workflows, and fully cited evidence-based sources.

### ✅ `81db15ff…` — score 7/10
- Several scope-of-practice entries appear outdated or oversimplified for current state regulations.
- Spreadsheet lacks citations or dates to validate regulatory accuracy.
- Telehealth-specific supervision nuances are not addressed explicitly.
  > 💡 Add current statutory citations and a review date to strengthen accuracy and credibility.

### ❌ `61b0946a…` — score 4/10
- Original task never requested a proposal or files, so deliverable scope is misaligned.
- Key operational constraints like scheduling, 3-hour window, and freeze/thaw logistics are not addressed.
- Cost analysis lacks explicit linkage to the four required general surgery procedures.
  > 💡 Clarify task objectives and align outputs to explicitly requested planning, logistics, and utilization requirements.

### ❌ `61e7b9c6…` — score 3/10
- Formulary is largely empty and missing most FDA-approved and off-label menopause medications.
- Bijuva generic is incorrect; listed as estradiol/bazedoxifene instead of estradiol/progesterone.
- Price estimates lack sourcing detail and many rows have no cost data.
  > 💡 Complete the spreadsheet with correct drug data, full medication coverage, and populated price estimates.

### ❌ `c9bf9801…` — score 4/10
- Guide content is high-level and lacks required detailed sections and deliverables.
- Required 4-month and 8-month evaluation forms are missing.
- Templates and applications contain placeholder-level content only.
  > 💡 Expand the guide and templates with detailed content, add missing evaluation forms, and apply CDC branding.

### ❌ `f1be6436…` — score 3/10
- Uses placeholder screenshots instead of real sources captured at completion time.
- Registration, flight, and hotel costs are unverified estimates without source details.
- Missing departmental versus discretionary fund calculations and final totals.
  > 💡 Replace placeholders with real screenshots, verify all costs, and add complete funding breakdowns.

### ✅ `41f6ef59…` — score 7/10
- Spreadsheet lacks visible dropdowns or checkboxes for efficient data entry.
- File name uses underscores instead of exact requested title.
- Email template subject omits mention of third decline explicitly.
  > 💡 Add explicit data validation dropdowns or checkboxes and align file naming exactly to requirements.

### ✅ `a0552909…` — score 7/10
- Bulk form tables include an extra blank or nan column before headers.
- Logo presence in Excel sheets is not visible or verifiable.
- Data validation dropdowns are not evident from the file preview.
  > 💡 Remove the extra column, visibly embed the logo, and verify dropdown validations before distribution.

### ✅ `6d2c8e55…` — score 5/10
- Article PDFs contain generic PMC links, not specific peer-reviewed articles.
- Publication dates and last-10-years compliance are not documented.
- One article is provided as DOCX instead of required PDF.
  > 💡 Replace placeholders with specific open-access article PDFs and document publication dates for compliance.

### ❌ `4b98ccce…` — score 4/10
- Deceased correspondence contains instructional text instead of finalized letter content.
- Required template elements and placeholders are not properly completed.
- Letter content mixes general correspondence instructions with deceased correspondence.
  > 💡 Finalize letters using templates, remove instructions, complete placeholders, and verify all required sections.

### ❌ `60221cd0…` — score 4/10
- Required PDF deliverable was not produced.
- Incorrect file type provided instead of PDF.
- Text response explains tooling limitations rather than delivering requirements.
  > 💡 Export and submit the final article as a PDF file meeting all original specifications.

### ✅ `ef8719da…` — score 7/10
- Selected background reading lacks actual hyperlinks.
- One listed source is not cited with a URL.
- Text response summarizes work instead of presenting pitch content.
  > 💡 Add direct hyperlinks and ensure the pitch content is fully presented without meta-description.

### ✅ `3baa0009…` — score 7/10
- Article appears under 300 words, below the required length.
- Report describes slower growth, not explicitly negative global growth as requested.
- No specific forecast figures for global, US, or China growth are included.
  > 💡 Add explicit growth numbers, clarify negativity, and expand slightly to meet the word minimum.

### ✅ `5d0feb24…` — score 6/10
- No evidence the original reporter draft was reviewed or compared via true redline edits.
- Editorial comments lack required supporting links to the arXiv paper and external sources.
- Novelty of the cited study and its specific methods are not clearly explained.
  > 💡 Explicitly reference the reporter’s original draft and add source-linked comments explaining the study’s novel methodology.

### ✅ `6974adea…` — score 8/10
- Subheadings are not clearly visible in the previewed document excerpt.
- Word count cannot be confirmed from the provided file preview alone.
- Source usage is implied but not explicitly attributed in-text.
  > 💡 Add clearer subheadings and explicit source attribution to strengthen editorial transparency.

### ✅ `1a78e076…` — score 6/10
- Document length appears shorter than required 10–15 pages.
- Significant duplicated paragraphs indicate editing or quality control errors.
- Explicit prevalence, morbidity, mortality, and financial data are insufficiently evidenced.
  > 💡 Expand content with cited data, remove duplication, and verify length and required analytic elements.

### ✅ `0112fc9b…` — score 8/10
- Family history and surgical history not documented in SOAP note sections.
- Driving safety guidance after head injury is limited.
- Imaging decision-making rationale not addressed.
  > 💡 Add pertinent history details and explicitly document head injury risk assessment and driving restrictions.

### ✅ `772e7524…` — score 8/10
- Assessment lacks explicit differential diagnoses.
- Plan omits specific antibiotic selection and duration.
  > 💡 Add brief differential diagnoses and specify guideline-based antibiotic regimen.

### ✅ `e6429658…` — score 6/10
- AbbVie assistance application was recreated in Word instead of completing the official PDF form.
- Appeal letter length does not clearly meet the required 2–4 page specification.
- Patient date of birth is inconsistent within the appeal document.
  > 💡 Complete the official AbbVie PDF form and correct demographics while ensuring the appeal meets page requirements.

### ✅ `b5d2e6f1…` — score 7/10
- Sales by Brand tab does not show a clear grand total row.
- Grand totals for Sales by Store are not verified in the file preview.
- Sell-through percentages are not formatted as percentages.
  > 💡 Add explicit grand total rows and format all ST% fields as percentages.

### ✅ `f841ddcf…` — score 7/10
- Percent shipped values are decimals, not formatted as percentages.
- Second summary table for June-window orders shipping in July is not clearly labeled.
- Column headers and structure appear inconsistent at the top of the sheet.
  > 💡 Format percent values properly, clearly label the second summary table, and clean up headers for clarity.

### ✅ `47ef842d…` — score 7/10
- Excel file lacks a clear methodology or calculations sheet to show work.
- Text claims a methodology sheet that is not present in the workbook.
  > 💡 Add a dedicated methodology tab documenting all formulas and assumptions used in the summary metrics.

### ✅ `1137e2bb…` — score 8/10
- SKU summary is a static table, not a pivot table with explicit drill-down.
  > 💡 Convert the SKU summary into a pivot table with PO-level drill-down enabled.

### ✅ `c3525d4d…` — score 6/10
- Production units include decimals instead of whole numbers.
- Removed stores are not identified or listed anywhere.
- Specific store changes like 4099 and 3737 are not explicitly confirmed.
  > 💡 Round production units to whole numbers and add a tab clearly showing added and removed stores.

### ✅ `9a0d8d36…` — score 6/10
- Presentation content cannot be verified due to unsupported preview.
- Text response lacks actual tax calculations or examples.
- Vesting timing and its tax impact are not explicitly confirmed.
  > 💡 Include a brief slide summary or calculation excerpt in the text response for verification.

### ✅ `664a42e5…` — score 8/10
- Text response summarizes deliverables but does not outline slide-by-slide content.
- 2025 gift tax exclusion amount is referenced but not explicitly stated.
- Policy types included in the ILIT are not specified in the text.
  > 💡 Add a brief slide outline and explicitly state key figures and policy types in the summary.

### ✅ `feb5eefc…` — score 6/10
- Required PDF deliverable was not provided; only a DOCX file was produced.
- Output does not strictly meet the specified file format requirement.
  > 💡 Convert the finalized document to PDF and resubmit to fully meet deliverable requirements.

### ✅ `3600de06…` — score 7/10
- Explicit citations to FINRA and NAIC sources are not confirmed in the preview.
- Exact confirmation of a 10-slide structure is not visible.
- Penalty and fee comparisons may lack quantified examples.
  > 💡 Add explicit FINRA and NAIC citations on slides and verify a clear 10-slide structure.

### ✅ `c657103b…` — score 6/10
- Starting 2025 balance deviates from stated $3.5 million assumption.
- RMD calculations and IRS Uniform Lifetime Table factors are not explicitly documented.
- Tax assumptions use fixed rates and ignore bracket interactions with other income.
  > 💡 Align assumptions precisely to the client profile and document IRS factors and tax methodology clearly.

### ✅ `ae0c1093…` — score 6/10
- Required PDF files were not produced; only DOCX files were delivered.
- Text response claims PDFs despite acknowledging DOCX output.
- Deliverables do not meet specified file format requirement.
  > 💡 Convert both documents to PDF and resubmit with correct file formats.

### ✅ `f9f82549…` — score 7/10
- PDF flowchart lacks visual flowchart elements and appears as a text list.
- PDF title emphasis may not clearly match required flowchart title wording.
- Extra flowchart PowerPoint was produced beyond stated requirements.
  > 💡 Add clear flowchart graphics and align the PDF title exactly to the specified wording.

### ✅ `57b2cdf2…` — score 7/10
- Photographs depict book club attendance, contradicting report claims she did not attend.
- Photographs show entering and leaving a male's home, not described in surveillance timeline.
- Report omits significant observed interactions shown in photos, including hugging an adult male.
  > 💡 Revise the surveillance timeline to accurately reflect and explain all photographed activities.

### ✅ `84322284…` — score 6/10
- Timeline lacks detailed day-by-day structure and specific timestamps.
- Investigator time log and provided templates are not explicitly integrated.
- Analysis is brief and lacks specific incident evidence references.
  > 💡 Expand the report with a detailed timeline, explicit log references, and evidence-linked analysis.

### ✅ `a46d5cd2…` — score 5/10
- Final report was not delivered in required PDF format.
- Company letterhead PDF was not produced or attached.
- Text response replaces deliverable instead of providing the required report file.
  > 💡 Generate and submit a single PDF report on company letterhead with integrated photographs.

### ❌ `6241e678…` — score 3/10
- Schedule cells contain no dates, durations, or visual indicators.
- Color-coding for phases and client tasks is missing or not visible.
- Several required phases and revision rounds are absent or unscheduled.
  > 💡 Populate dates, durations, and color-coding for all required tasks through Aug 29 and re-export.

### ✅ `e14e32ba…` — score 6/10
- Images are not embedded in the document, only referenced as placeholders.
- Media links are obvious placeholders and not real interview or feature content.
- Business hours are vague and not specific or verified.
  > 💡 Embed real photos, replace placeholder links with actual media, and list precise business hours.

### ❌ `e4f664ea…` — score 4/10
- Final deliverable is DOCX, not required PDF format.
- Script length far below required 8–12 pages.
- Formatting compliance with Courier 12pt cannot be verified.
  > 💡 Expand scenes to full 8–12 pages and deliver a verified PDF in industry-standard format.

### ✅ `a079d38f…` — score 6/10
- Setup time per shoot day is not estimated or shown.
- Time estimates lack daily hours range and total production hours.
- Two-camera shoot lacks clarity on number of videographers.
  > 💡 Add explicit setup hours, daily shoot duration, and clarify staffing per camera.

### ❌ `02aa1805…` — score 4/10
- Well data is simulated rather than pulled from the Illinois EPA website.
- Task required investigation and review of actual IEPA source water assessment data.
- Email recommendation is based on placeholder data, reducing decision reliability.
  > 💡 Access and extract real IEPA SWAP factsheet data before finalizing analysis and recommendations.

### ❌ `fd6129bd…` — score 3/10
- Change Request Form lacks required fields and is essentially empty.
- SOP lacks detailed procedures, triggers, documentation requirements, and decision tracking specifics.
- Deliverables do not reflect comprehensive working session inputs.
  > 💡 Fully populate the SOP and form using all working session requirements and audit-ready details.

### ✅ `ce864f41…` — score 6/10
- Text response does not directly answer the three required analysis questions.
- Project vs Budget sheet contains missing budget values for some projects.
- Over- or underutilized departments and individuals are not explicitly identified against thresholds.
  > 💡 Add concise written answers with specific findings and complete missing budget data.

### ✅ `58ac1cc5…` — score 7/10
- Change Control Request was not provided as a PDF as required.
- Duplicate Change Control files were generated in different formats without clarification.
- Use of the attached blank change control form was not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Reissue the Change Control using the official blank form and attach it as a single PDF.

### ✅ `3c19c6d1…` — score 6/10
- Claims use of source data that was never provided.
- Slide content compliance cannot be verified from the response.
- No evidence slides meet exact specified structures and dates.
  > 💡 Summarise slide-by-slide content and confirm alignment with each stated requirement.

### ❌ `a99d85fc…` — score 3/10
- Annual rent matrices contain no calculated values or totals.
- Monthly rent matrices are missing entirely.
- No evidence of formulas, color-coding, or dynamic calculator functionality.
  > 💡 Populate matrices with working formulas, totals, monthly detail, and visible formatting per requirements.

### ❌ `55ddb773…` — score 3/10
- Did not include specific violation types and questions from the attached Violations Questions PDF.
- Delivered DOCX instead of the required PDF format.
- Used placeholder lines instead of fully populated architectural regulation items.
  > 💡 Extract or manually transcribe all violations from the attached PDF and deliver a completed PDF form.

### ❌ `1e5a1d7f…` — score 3/10
- DOCX lacks the required task table content.
- Four specified columns are missing entirely.
- No weekly, time-based tasks derived from PM duties are shown.
  > 💡 Populate the DOCX with a complete table including all required columns and weekly task details.

### ✅ `0419f1c3…` — score 6/10
- Work order metrics contain a contradiction: 16 logged yet 16 remained open.
- Acknowledgement time and redo rate are not quantitatively analyzed from logs.
- Training recommendations lack explicit justification tied to specific data points.
  > 💡 Add precise KPI calculations from logs and clearly link each training module to measured gaps.

### ✅ `ed2bc14c…` — score 6/10
- Departure reasons are mislabeled and descriptions do not match their category titles.
- No quantitative analysis or counts from the exit survey are presented.
- Exit survey categories are not clearly mapped to the required five reasons.
  > 💡 Revise the analysis section to correctly categorize, quantify, and explain top departure reasons using exit survey data.

### ✅ `46bc7238…` — score 5/10
- Deliverable is DOCX, not the required 5–8 page PDF.
- No clear cover page or images embedded on each page.
- Several sections are overly brief and lack professional depth.
  > 💡 Convert to a designed 5–8 page PDF with a cover, embedded stock images, and expanded scripts and flyer.

### ✅ `2d06bc0a…` — score 7/10
- LOI expiration date is left blank and not specified.
- Non-binding section appears truncated or incomplete in the document.
- Rounding explanation for cap rate pricing is not explicitly stated.
  > 💡 Add a specific expiration date and complete the non-binding section for clarity.

### ❌ `fd3ad420…` — score 4/10
- Required one-page PDF was not delivered.
- Incorrect file type provided instead of PDF.
- Text response describes intent rather than delivering final output.
  > 💡 Generate and deliver the finalized document as a single-page PDF as requested.

### ✅ `0818571f…` — score 5/10
- Properties are illustrative, not verified active Crexi or LoopNet listings.
- Investor criteria from attached PDF are not explicitly referenced or validated.
- Photos and maps are placeholders rather than actual property-specific visuals.
  > 💡 Source and document real active listings meeting the PDF criteria with verified data and authentic visuals.

### ✅ `6074bba3…` — score 5/10
- CMA document contains unresolved placeholders like $[_] and [Insert Graph].
- Active or pending listings data is missing or not clearly provided.
- Comparable sales data appears incomplete or truncated in the spreadsheet.
  > 💡 Finalize all placeholders, embed graphs, and include complete active and sold comps before delivery.

### ✅ `5ad0c554…` — score 7/10
- Does not explicitly identify specific items from the '132 Things Realtors Do for Buyers' list.
- Brochure layout does not clearly demonstrate a double-sided design.
- Visual image is not shown embedded within the Word brochure content.
  > 💡 Explicitly reference numbered items from the 132-item list and format the Word file as a true two-page spread with embedded visuals.

### ❌ `11593a50…` — score 3/10
- PDFs were not delivered; only DOCX files provided.
- Property tables, photos, and required columns are missing or placeholders.
- MLS sourcing and eligibility verification are not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Produce actual PDFs with verified MLS listings, complete tables, real photos, and a pinned map.

### ❌ `94925f49…` — score 4/10
- Required PDF reports were not delivered; DOCX files were provided instead.
- School statistics and home listings are illustrative, not sourced factual data.
- Reports lack community reviews, neighboring schools, and detailed academic metrics.
  > 💡 Provide factual, sourced data and convert each report into compliant PDF format.

### ❌ `90f37ff3…` — score 4/10
- PDF format not provided; DOCX delivered instead.
- Missing 3–6 specific comparables with addresses and asking rents.
- No evidence of three-mile radius or three-year timeframe.
  > 💡 Deliver a four-page PDF including sourced comparables with addresses, rents, radius, and dates.

### ✅ `d3d255b2…` — score 6/10
- Required PDF was not delivered; only a DOCX file was provided.
- Text response contains meta commentary instead of deliverable content.
- Environment limitation explanation is unprofessional for client-facing deliverable.
  > 💡 Provide the finalized report as a properly formatted PDF without referencing system limitations.

### ✅ `403b9234…` — score 9/10
- Text response is slightly repetitive and could be more concise.
  > 💡 Condense the narrative summary and avoid repeating deliverable descriptions.

### ✅ `1bff4551…` — score 6/10
- Original song YouTube link is a placeholder and not a valid video.
- No evidence songs were verified against the Institute’s collection database.
  > 💡 Replace the placeholder link and confirm collection representation for each selected artist.

### ✅ `650adcb1…` — score 7/10
- Sixth Time_Off_Requests tab is not visible in the workbook preview.
- Key placement is cluttered with extra blank columns on the December sheet.
- Color coding cannot be verified from the provided file preview.
  > 💡 Add a clearly labeled Time_Off_Requests tab and simplify the key layout on the first sheet.

### ✅ `01d7e53e…` — score 6/10
- Missing primary contact information for day-to-day program decisions.
- Miscellaneous section with City standard contract language is not included.
- Agreement lacks exhibits and detailed space usage terms referenced in task.
  > 💡 Add required contact details, City standard miscellaneous language, and referenced exhibits before legal review.

### ✅ `a73fbc98…` — score 6/10
- No evidence assignments honor electricity limits or outlet availability.
- Product-type separation and adjacency preferences are not demonstrated against a layout.
- PDF shows incomplete vendor entry indicating possible data error.
  > 💡 Include a layout map and notes verifying electricity, preferences, and product separation were satisfied.

### ❌ `0ec25916…` — score 3/10
- Required PDF format not delivered; only a DOCX file provided.
- SBAR table with four rows and prompts is missing or incomplete.
- Document does not show lined spaces for clinical prompts as specified.
  > 💡 Create a complete one-page PDF with the specified SBAR table and prompts.

### ✅ `dd724c67…` — score 6/10
- Facility list is incomplete and omits rehabilitation facilities across Long Island.
- CMS TFU guide lacks full condition list and explicit PY 2025 source alignment.
- Second sheet has unclear column structure and blank headers.
  > 💡 Expand to a verified complete facility census and restructure the TFU tab with clear columns and citations.

### ❌ `7151c60a…` — score 4/10
- Pre-screening checklist lacks required table format and patient information elements.
- Checklist missing date sent, date received, initials fields, page numbers, and staff-only designation.
- Both documents appear to omit the required company logo.
  > 💡 Revise both Word documents to add logos and fully meet all specified formatting and regulatory content requirements.

### ❌ `90edba97…` — score 3/10
- Actual monthly lab values from the Word document were not entered.
- Medication changes per standing order protocols were not specifically applied.
- Spreadsheet structure does not reflect required adequacy, anemia, nutrition, and mineral sections.
  > 💡 Re-enter actual lab data and document protocol-driven medication changes in correctly structured sheets.

### ✅ `91060ff0…` — score 5/10
- Required 36x24 inch PDF poster was not delivered, only a DOCX file.
- Over-the-counter pharmacological treatments section lacks actual content and product comparisons.
- Poster lacks visuals, tables, or icons required for self-guided understanding.
  > 💡 Provide a finalized 36x24 inch PDF with complete OTC details and clear visual elements.

### ❌ `8384083a…` — score 3/10
- Reference guide lacks NDCs, strengths, package sizes, formulas, and days’ supply calculations.
- File is a brief Word document, not a 1–2 page detailed guide.
- No medication-specific tables or audit-relevant data are included.
  > 💡 Create a detailed table for each medication with NDC, strength, package size, formula, and days’ supply, and export as PDF.

### ❌ `045aba2e…` — score 4/10
- Required PDFs were not produced; only DOCX files were delivered.
- File formats do not meet the explicit PDF requirement.
- Checklists lack explicit citations to California lawbook sections.
  > 💡 Convert files to PDFs and add brief statutory references from the California Lawbook.

### ❌ `f2986c1f…` — score 3/10
- Medications were not identified using Drugs.com as required.
- Excel contains only placeholder NA values without attempting identification.
- Internet access limitation is not an acceptable justification.
  > 💡 Identify medications from the image using Drugs.com and populate all available fields accordingly.

### ❌ `ffed32d8…` — score 3/10
- Key cost and reimbursement data are missing, leaving revenue calculations blank or zero.
- Required PDF report was not delivered as specified.
- Analysis does not reference or apply provided Wholesale Price and Reimbursement files.
  > 💡 Populate all required pricing data, complete calculations, and deliver the final report as a PDF.

### ✅ `b3573f20…` — score 6/10
- PDF is two pages, not the required three pages.
- Text response inaccurately claims a three-page PDF was created.
- An extra DOCX file was produced but not requested.
  > 💡 Extend the PDF to three pages and align the description with the actual deliverables.

### ❌ `a69be28f…` — score 4/10
- Required PDF deliverable was not produced; only a PPTX file was provided.
- No Excel-based analysis was completed; slides note missing data instead of insights.
- Executive summary and regional fit performance cannot be verified from provided content.
  > 💡 Provide a PDF version with verified regional analyses or request the missing Excel data before delivery.

### ✅ `788d2bc6…` — score 6/10
- PDF format was required but only a PPTX file was delivered.
- No verifiable proof that content aligns with SERVICESV5.docx.
- Slide count and visual requirements cannot be validated from the response.
  > 💡 Provide a PDF export and explicitly confirm alignment with SERVICESV5 and slide specifications.

### ✅ `74ed1dc7…` — score 9/10
- Proposal does not explicitly reference or cite the provided reference file challenges.
- Existing Bulk order type is not discussed in context of new additions.
  > 💡 Explicitly map each proposed order type to specific reference-file challenges and existing order types.

### ✅ `69a8ef86…` — score 9/10
- Internal process uses KAR while task specifies KAM approving returns.
  > 💡 Align role naming consistently between KAM and KAR across all documents.

### ✅ `ab81b076…` — score 5/10
- PDF format not delivered as required.
- Visual guidance images not embedded or referenced in the procedure document.
- Communication steps with Parts Distribution Center lack detail.
  > 💡 Convert the document to PDF and embed annotated images with clearer escalation and communication steps.

### ✅ `d7cfae6f…` — score 5/10
- YTD percent change column is uncalculated and shows zeros.
- An unnamed column appears, indicating incomplete cleanup or structure issues.
- Inventory comparison percentages are zero, making variance analysis unusable.
  > 💡 Finalize calculations, remove placeholder columns, and validate inventory and percentage formulas before delivery.

### ❌ `19403010…` — score 2/10
- All sales values are zero, indicating no data analysis was performed.
- Sections 3–5 lack required function-level data and calculations.
- Excel layout uses blank headers and missing required columns.
  > 💡 Rebuild the workbook using the provided data pull and fully calculate all required metrics and sections.

### ❌ `7ed932dd…` — score 4/10
- Days of inventory and delivered days of inventory are not included.
- Most projected out-of-stock dates are blank or inconsistent.
- No evidence of highlighting or comparison to current shipment schedule.
  > 💡 Add inventory day calculations, complete out-of-stock dates, and clearly highlight urgent or early delivery needs.

### ❌ `105f8ad0…` — score 4/10
- Competitor pricing research was not conducted or cited as required.
- Excel model lacks full SKU list and size range benchmarking.
- Rationales are generic and do not reference specific competitive comparisons.
  > 💡 Conduct real competitive MSRP research and expand the model to cover all provided SKUs with detailed comparisons.

### ✅ `b57efde3…` — score 5/10
- Did not use or verify companies against the official Aqua Nor 2025 exhibitor list.
- Prospecting list is based on general industry knowledge, not documented exhibitor review.
- Very limited number of prospects relative to task scope.
  > 💡 Review the official exhibitor list and expand the spreadsheet with verified Aqua Nor 2025 participants.

### ✅ `15d37511…` — score 7/10
- Tiered pricing logic not demonstrated; quantities set exactly at threshold.
- Margin percentage shown as decimal rather than percentage format.
- Consumable margin lacks per-unit pricing transparency.
  > 💡 Clarify tiered pricing application, format margins as percentages, and show per-unit consumable assumptions.

### ✅ `bb863dd9…` — score 5/10
- Non-basic modules show incorrect quantities; they should be one unit each.
- WHO documentation link is referenced but no actual URL is included.
- Pricing source from internal document is not explicitly cited in the file.
  > 💡 Correct module quantities, add the full WHO URL, and explicitly reference the internal pricing source.

### ✅ `fe0d3941…` — score 7/10
- Survey does not address requirement that it targets over a hundred respondents.
  > 💡 Clarify intended sample size and include a statement indicating survey is designed for 100+ participants.

### ❌ `6a900a40…` — score 4/10
- Quantity remains 1 instead of confirmed 400 kits.
- Lead time and unit price are not updated per internal reference table.
- Transport options and grand totals are not clearly shown below Total EXW.
  > 💡 Revise the Excel to correctly reflect quantity, pricing, lead time, and detailed transport options as specified.

### ✅ `9efbcd35…` — score 7/10
- No specific MSCI performance figures or percentages are cited.
- External news sources are referenced generally without explicit citations.
- Document preview shows a truncated sentence suggesting possible incomplete content.
  > 💡 Add precise MSCI return figures and clear source citations to strengthen credibility.

### ❌ `1d4672c8…` — score 4/10
- Used simulated data instead of extracting official MSCI historical returns.
- Required PDF analysis was not delivered; DOCX was provided instead.
- Excel workbook lacks a clearly presented correlation matrix tab.
  > 💡 Rebuild deliverables using official MSCI data, add a correlation matrix tab, and submit the analysis as a PDF.

### ✅ `4de6a529…` — score 6/10
- The PDF lacks a full table with explicit UW/N/OW columns for each line item.
- Many required sub-asset classes from the reference categories are missing.
- The DOCX file is largely incomplete and lacks the required content.
  > 💡 Expand the tables to include all specified sub-asset classes with full columns and complete both files.

### ❌ `4c4dc603…` — score 4/10
- PDF contains placeholders instead of concrete numbers from the IM.
- Key team member profiles are missing names and credentials.
- Dividend and economics details are vague and not investor-ready.
  > 💡 Populate the summary with specific metrics, named team profiles, and concrete economics extracted from the IM.

### ❌ `bb499d9c…` — score 4/10
- Document lacks detailed step-by-step processes and comprehensive content required by the task.
- Issuer and investor flowcharts lack textual breakdowns and issuer group customization.
- Several required sections are overly high-level or missing substantive detail.
  > 💡 Expand the Word document with detailed processes, breakdowns, and customized flows to fully meet requirements.

### ✅ `5349dd7b…` — score 6/10
- Carrier rates and increases are estimates without documented research or sources.
- Requirement to use search engines for historical increases was not fulfilled.
- Business rate eligibility is assumed but not verified or cited.
  > 💡 Redo analysis using documented carrier sources and explicitly cite researched rates and increases.

### ✅ `552b7dd0…` — score 6/10
- No evidence the Excel incident data was actually reviewed or referenced.
- Summary text lacks specific figures, suppliers, costs, or duration metrics.
- Unable to verify required analyses without previewable slide content.
  > 💡 Include explicit data-driven results and confirm linkage to the source Excel dataset.

### ❌ `11dcc268…` — score 2/10
- Item Number column contains supplier names instead of item numbers.
- Moved To locations are UNASSIGNED, not assigned line locations.
- Report omits quantities and the partial receipt handling for P11-P09457-01.
  > 💡 Recreate the report by cross-referencing the receiving log and inventory master to populate correct items, quantities, and locations.

### ✅ `76418a2c…` — score 7/10
- Savings values show excessive decimal precision.
- Shipping method naming is inconsistent across rows.
  > 💡 Round savings to two decimals and standardize shipping method names.

### ✅ `0e386e32…` — score 6/10
- Smart contracts lack actual zkSNARK, nullifier, and proof verification implementations.
- Aave yield and Connext cross-chain integrations are described but not concretely implemented.
- Frontend and contracts do not enforce or demonstrate the required withdrawal delay.
  > 💡 Provide full zkSNARK circuits, enforce lock-up logic, and implement real Aave and Connext integrations.

### ✅ `7de33b48…` — score 6/10
- Queuing behavior for multiple concurrent status messages is not demonstrated or validated.
- Tests do not explicitly verify aria-live role presence before message updates.
- ZIP contents are not clearly enumerated or verified against requirements.
  > 💡 Add explicit message-queue implementation and expand tests to assert ARIA22 requirements and visible mode behavior.

### ✅ `854f3814…` — score 8/10
- Query lacks network=US:I filter to ensure only interstate routes.
- Bounding box is coarse and may include unrelated I-40 segments.
- No explicit validation of way direction or carriageways.
  > 💡 Add a network=US:I filter and refine the bounding box for greater precision.

### ✅ `4122f866…` — score 5/10
- README lacks detailed setup steps, environment variables, and API usage examples.
- Terraform likely omits SES DKIM, MAIL FROM records, and email template resources.
- Lambda implementation details for reCAPTCHA validation and SES templating are unclear.
  > 💡 Expand Terraform and README to fully cover SES setup, Lambda behavior, and operational details.

### ✅ `2c249e0f…` — score 8/10
- Payload data offline or SSD shipping workflow is not explicitly described.
- Customer access APIs for insight data are not defined in the OpenAPI spec.
  > 💡 Add endpoints and data flow details for customer insight data access and offline payload ingestion.

## Failure Analysis

The dominant failure mode was deliverable compliance rather than total task collapse. Only one task hard-failed (327fbc21, no files produced), but many nominal successes still missed required output types, counts, or validity checks. PDF export failures were especially common across sectors: required PDFs were replaced with DOCX or PPTX in tasks such as 9e8607e7, a1963a68, cd9efc18, 60221cd0, 91060ff0, and fd3ad420. A more severe version of the same pattern was silent non-delivery or invalid artifacts despite success labels, including 401a07f1 (no file), 5f6c57dd (no workbook built), c94452e4 (no video file), and b9665ca1 (invalid PDF schematic). This indicates the run was much better at drafting intent than at guaranteeing final artifact compliance.

The clearest sector cluster was Information, especially media-heavy occupations. Audio/Video Technicians and Film/Video Editors repeatedly returned plans, placeholders, or source files instead of finished media: ff85ee58 and 4b894ae3 did not produce real mixed audio outputs, while e222075d, c94452e4, 75401f7c, and a941b6d8 failed to deliver actual edited/composited MP4s. Producers and Directors showed the same pattern in lighter form, with 6241e678 missing populated schedule content and e4f664ea missing the required PDF and page length. By contrast, the model was much stronger on static narrative or policy documents, as seen in high-QA tasks like a0ef404e, a95a5829, b1a79ce1, 116e791e, and a4a9195c. The comparison suggests a strong gap between document synthesis and true media/render execution.

A second major pattern was weak grounding to provided data, templates, or required external sources. Finance, Wholesale, and Real Estate had repeated cases where outputs used illustrative values, blank models, or unverified listings instead of source-constrained analysis. Examples include 8079e27d and 1d4672c8 using simulated market data, 5f6c57dd and b39a5aa7 leaving core financial models incomplete, 3f821c2d and 19403010 failing basic spreadsheet calculations, and a99d85fc, 0818571f, and 11593a50 using placeholder or unsourced property information. Similar template-fidelity failures appeared in operational roles: 43dc9778 did not actually complete Form 1040, 7d7fc9a7 did not build invoice-level amortization, and 0ec25916 missed the specified SBAR table structure. These low-QA tasks usually shared one of three traits: strict source-file dependence, exact tabular/calculation requirements, or factual verification via web research.

Retry behavior was mixed and often did not fix structural problems. Retried tasks such as c44e9b62, a10ec48c, 6241e678, 19403010, and 6a900a40 still had the same root issues after rerun: incorrect calculations, missing sourced data, empty schedule content, zero-value analyses, or unchanged quantity errors. Retries worked better only on bounded, internally structured tasks such as 24d1e93f, 76d10872, and 1137e2bb, where the problem was likely formatting or a narrow correction rather than missing reasoning or tooling capability. Latency also did not buy quality: very long runs like 75401f7c (262s, QA 3), e222075d (118s, QA 4), and c94452e4 (114s, QA 3) underperformed much shorter high-quality tasks such as a0ef404e (26.6s, QA 9) and a95a5829 (22.8s, QA 9). The evidence points to tool/task mismatch and weak output validation, not insufficient runtime, as the main driver of errors.

## Recommendations

First, add a hard post-generation compliance gate before marking any task successful. The gate should verify required file count, exact extension, filename, page count, sheet names, and basic artifact validity (for example: PDF opens, workbook has expected tabs, audio/video file exists and has nonzero duration). This would directly catch the most common failure class seen in 9e8607e7, a1963a68, cd9efc18, 60221cd0, 91060ff0, fd3ad420, and b9665ca1. The execution environment should include a reliable office conversion stack such as soffice/unoconv plus fallback Python exporters so the system does not stop at a drafted DOCX when a PDF was requested; task 02314fc6 strongly suggests export/tooling fragility is already surfacing in-run.

Second, route media and engineering-render tasks through a specialized toolchain instead of the generic document path. Install and explicitly invoke ffmpeg/moviepy/pydub for audio-video work, image/PDF render libraries for posters and schedules, and CAD-safe export validation for engineering drawings. Then require smoke tests tailored to the modality: MP4 codec and duration check, WAV sample rate and loudness check, PDF readability check, STEP/PDF existence and size check. This is the clearest lever for the Information-sector failures in ff85ee58, 4b894ae3, e222075d, c94452e4, 75401f7c, a941b6d8, and for engineering output issues like 5e2b6aab and b9665ca1. The run already shows the model can plan these tasks; the missing step is enforcing actual rendered artifact completion.

Third, strengthen prompt engineering around source grounding and calculation traceability. For any task that depends on attachments or external research, require the model to enumerate each source used, confirm it was opened, forbid illustrative data unless explicitly allowed, and produce a methodology/source tab or appendix with URLs, assumptions, and reconciliation checks. Spreadsheet tasks should include an automatic audit pass for blank formulas, all-zero outputs, missing summary rows, and placeholder strings before submission. This would target recurring failures in 8079e27d, 02aa1805, 0818571f, 5f6c57dd, b39a5aa7, 3f821c2d, 19403010, and 11593a50. For template-bound legal/accounting/clinical forms, add a checklist that maps each required section to a populated location in the final file, which would have helped on 43dc9778, 7d7fc9a7, and 0ec25916.

Finally, change retry policy from generic rerun to targeted repair based on detected failure type. Use self-QA at or below 4, plus objective triggers like missing files, invalid exports, blank calculation ranges, placeholder text, or source-citation absence, to launch a focused second pass. Format/export errors should trigger conversion repair; source-data violations should trigger a re-read-and-reconcile pass; layout/template violations should trigger structural completion. The current blind retry policy wasted time on c44e9b62, a10ec48c, 6241e678, 19403010, and 6a900a40 without addressing root cause, while bounded structured tasks such as 24d1e93f, 76d10872, and 1137e2bb show that targeted repair can work. Because long latency did not correlate with better QA, especially in Information, add early capability checks and sector-specific guardrails so expensive runs are only used when the toolchain can actually satisfy the requested modality.

## 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): 1 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): 4 file(s)
- `99ac6944…` (Information): 4 file(s)
- `f9a1c16c…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `38889c3b…` (Information): 6 file(s)
- `ff85ee58…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `4b894ae3…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `1b1ade2d…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `93b336f3…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `15ddd28d…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `24d1e93f…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `05389f78…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `575f8679…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a74ead3b…` (Government): 4 file(s)
- `bbe0a93b…` (Government): 6 file(s)
- `85d95ce5…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `76d10872…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `36d567ba…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `7bbfcfe9…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `2696757c…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `dfb4e0cd…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `4c18ebae…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `cebf301e…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `c2e8f271…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `2ea2e5b5…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 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): 2 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): 2 file(s)
- `476db143…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 4 file(s)
- `61f546a8…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `f3351922…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `61717508…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `0ed38524…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `87da214f…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `d025a41c…` (Finance and Insurance): 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): 1 file(s)
- `75401f7c…` (Information): 16 file(s)
- `a941b6d8…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `8079e27d…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `e21cd746…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `9e8607e7…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `c7d83f01…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `46b34f78…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `a1963a68…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `b39a5aa7…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `b78fd844…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `4520f882…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 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)
- `6dcae3f5…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `1aecc095…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `0353ee0c…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `40a8c4b1…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `4d1a8410…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `8c823e32…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `eb54f575…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `11e1b169…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a95a5829…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `22c0809b…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `bf68f2ad…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `efca245f…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `9e39df84…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `68d8d901…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `1752cb53…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `bd72994f…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `211d0093…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `d4525420…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `45c6237b…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `cecac8f9…` (Retail Trade): 5 file(s)
- `8f9e8bcd…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `0fad6023…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `02314fc6…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `4d61a19a…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `6436ff9e…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `8a7b6fca…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `40a99a31…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `b9665ca1…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `c6269101…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `be830ca0…` (Manufacturing): 5 file(s)
- `cd9efc18…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `a97369c7…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `3f625cb2…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `aad21e4c…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `8314d1b1…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `5e2b6aab…` (Manufacturing): 9 file(s)
- `46fc494e…` (Manufacturing): 8 file(s)
- `3940b7e7…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `8077e700…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `5a2d70da…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `74d6e8b0…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `81db15ff…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `61b0946a…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `61e7b9c6…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `c9bf9801…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 4 file(s)
- `f1be6436…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 5 file(s)
- `41f6ef59…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `a0552909…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 7 file(s)
- `6d2c8e55…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 11 file(s)
- `4b98ccce…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `60221cd0…` (Information): 1 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): 1 file(s)
- `1b9ec237…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `0112fc9b…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `772e7524…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `e6429658…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 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): 1 file(s)
- `664a42e5…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `feb5eefc…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `3600de06…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `c657103b…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `ae0c1093…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `f9f82549…` (Retail Trade): 8 file(s)
- `57b2cdf2…` (Retail Trade): 8 file(s)
- `84322284…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `a46d5cd2…` (Retail Trade): 7 file(s)
- `6241e678…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `e14e32ba…` (Information): 6 file(s)
- `b1a79ce1…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `e4f664ea…` (Information): 1 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): 1 file(s)
- `58ac1cc5…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 5 file(s)
- `3c19c6d1…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `a99d85fc…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `55ddb773…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `1e5a1d7f…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `0419f1c3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `ed2bc14c…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 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): 1 file(s)
- `0818571f…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 13 file(s)
- `6074bba3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 5 file(s)
- `5ad0c554…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `11593a50…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `94925f49…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 5 file(s)
- `90f37ff3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `d3d255b2…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `403b9234…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `1bff4551…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `650adcb1…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `01d7e53e…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a73fbc98…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `0ec25916…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 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): 3 file(s)
- `90edba97…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `91060ff0…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `8384083a…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `045aba2e…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `f2986c1f…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `ffed32d8…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `b3573f20…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `a69be28f…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `788d2bc6…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `74ed1dc7…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `69a8ef86…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `ab81b076…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `d7cfae6f…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `19403010…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `7ed932dd…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `105f8ad0…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `b57efde3…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `15d37511…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `bb863dd9…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `fe0d3941…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `6a900a40…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `9efbcd35…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `1d4672c8…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `4de6a529…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `4c4dc603…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `bb499d9c…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `5349dd7b…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `a4a9195c…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `552b7dd0…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `11dcc268…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `76418a2c…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `0e386e32…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 7 file(s)
- `7de33b48…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 6 file(s)
- `854f3814…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `4122f866…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 7 file(s)
- `2c249e0f…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
