# Experiment Report: GPT-5.2 Chat Elicit Capabilities — subprocess (Full 220 tasks)

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| **Experiment ID** | `exp004_GPT52Chat_elicit_runner_exec` |
| **Condition** | Elicit |
| **Model** | gpt-5.2-chat |
| **Execution Mode** | subprocess |
| **Date** | 2026-02-27 |
| **Duration** | 153m 53s |
| **Generated At** | 2026-02-27T13:38:30.970792+00:00 |
| 🤗 HF Dataset | [exp004_GPT52Chat_elicit_runner_exec](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp004_GPT52Chat_elicit_runner_exec) |
| 📊 Self-Report | [self_report.json](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp004_GPT52Chat_elicit_runner_exec/blob/main/self_report.json) |
| 📊 Grading | ⏳ Awaiting (`scores.json`) |

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

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

This experiment evaluated GPT-5.2 Chat under the Elicit condition in subprocess mode across the full 220-task suite. The run completed 200 tasks successfully, for a 90.9% task completion rate, with 20 errors and 72 retried tasks. Average end-to-end latency was 24,842 ms, indicating a relatively heavy execution profile but still consistent throughput across the benchmark.

From a self-assessed confidence perspective, the average Self-QA score was 5.87/10, with observed scores ranging from 2 to 9. That pattern indicates moderate LLM-evaluated quality overall: the model usually produced a usable deliverable when a task completed, but internal confidence in answer quality was uneven. In practical terms, task completion was strong, while deliverable quality appeared more variable than the completion rate alone would suggest.

Sector results were strongest on raw completion in Health Care and Social Assistance, Manufacturing, Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, and Real Estate and Rental and Leasing, each at 24/25. Government and Information followed at 23/25. The weakest completion rates were in Retail Trade (17/20), Wholesale Trade (20/25), and Finance and Insurance (21/25), suggesting these domains were more error-prone or more likely to require unsuccessful retries.

Deliverable file generation quality appears operationally reliable in the successful cases, but the combination of 72 retries and only mid-range self-assessed confidence suggests that some generated outputs were likely produced with uncertainty around completeness, correctness, or formatting. Latency varied by sector, but the faster sectors did not consistently underperform on LLM-evaluated quality, so longer execution time did not clearly translate into better deliverables.

## Key Metrics

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Tasks | 220 |
| Success | 200 (90.9%) |
| Errors | 20 |
| Retried Tasks | 72 |
| Avg QA Score | 5.87/10 |
| Min QA Score | 2/10 |
| Max QA Score | 9/10 |
| Avg Latency | 24,842ms |
| Max Latency | 56,139ms |
| Total LLM Time | 5465s |

## File Generation

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Tasks requiring files | 185 |
| Successfully generated | 171 (92.4%) |
| Failed → dummy created | 14 |

### Resume Rounds

| Round | Attempted | Recovered | Still Failed |
|-------|-----------|-----------|--------------|
| 1 | 43 | 43 | 0 |
| 2 | 29 | 9 | 20 |

## Quality Analysis

The Self-QA profile points to a broad spread in LLM-evaluated quality rather than tight clustering at the high end. An average of 5.87/10, with a minimum of 2 and maximum of 9, indicates that the run included both low-confidence and high-confidence outputs, but most results were likely in the moderate band. This suggests the model often finished tasks and generated deliverables, yet frequently judged those outputs as only partially strong.

At the sector level, Government stands out as the best quality performer, with a 6.9/10 average Self-QA score alongside 23/25 success and below-run-average latency. Real Estate and Rental and Leasing and Retail Trade both reached 6.3/10, although Retail had materially lower completion reliability at 17/20. Finance and Insurance was the weakest sector on self-assessed confidence at 5.2/10 and also underperformed on completion, making it the clearest area of relative weakness in this run.

Several sectors showed a notable split between execution reliability and confidence in output quality. Health Care and Social Assistance, Information, Manufacturing, and Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services all had high completion rates, but their average Self-QA scores stayed in the 5.5-5.7 range. That pattern implies deliverable generation was generally successful, but the model often viewed the resulting files or responses as only moderately strong. No occupation-level breakdown was provided, so the evaluation can only support sector-level observations rather than role-specific strengths or failure modes.

Latency does not show a positive relationship with quality in this run. Manufacturing (28,570 ms), Information (27,225 ms), and Finance and Insurance (26,882 ms) were among the slowest sectors, yet their Self-QA scores remained moderate to low. By contrast, Government combined relatively modest latency (23,432 ms) with the highest quality, and Retail and Wholesale were among the fastest while still achieving mid-range to above-average confidence. The available evidence therefore suggests that longer subprocess runtimes were more likely associated with task complexity or retries than with improved LLM-evaluated quality.

## Sector Breakdown

| Sector | Tasks | Success | Success% | Avg QA | Avg Latency |
|--------|-------|---------|----------|--------|-------------|
| Finance and Insurance | 25 | 21 | 84.0% | 5.24/10 | 26,882ms |
| Government | 25 | 23 | 92.0% | 6.87/10 | 23,432ms |
| Health Care and Social Assistance | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 5.46/10 | 23,586ms |
| Information | 25 | 23 | 92.0% | 5.52/10 | 27,225ms |
| Manufacturing | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 5.71/10 | 28,570ms |
| Professional, Scientific, and Technical  | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 5.54/10 | 25,724ms |
| Real Estate and Rental and Leasing | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 6.33/10 | 24,277ms |
| Retail Trade | 20 | 17 | 85.0% | 6.35/10 | 21,837ms |
| Wholesale Trade | 25 | 20 | 80.0% | 5.85/10 | 21,442ms |

## Task Results

| # | Task ID | Sector | Occupation | Status | Retry | Files | QA Score | Latency |
|---|---------|--------|------------|--------|-------|-------|----------|---------|
| 1 | `83d10b06…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 20138ms |
| 2 | `7b08cd4d…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 2 | 2/10 | 22008ms |
| 3 | `7d7fc9a7…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 7 | 4/10 | 27323ms |
| 4 | `43dc9778…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 16 | 6/10 | 21744ms |
| 5 | `ee09d943…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 18 | 6/10 | 16037ms |
| 6 | `f84ea6ac…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 1 | 2/10 | 24740ms |
| 7 | `a328feea…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 11296ms |
| 8 | `27e8912c…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 26912ms |
| 9 | `17111c03…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 8/10 | 24135ms |
| 10 | `c44e9b62…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | Yes | 6 | 4/10 | 26430ms |
| 11 | `99ac6944…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 30128ms |
| 12 | `f9a1c16c…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 19640ms |
| 13 | `38889c3b…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 32248ms |
| 14 | `ff85ee58…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 25226ms |
| 15 | `4b894ae3…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 29267ms |
| 16 | `1b1ade2d…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 25821ms |
| 17 | `93b336f3…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 30343ms |
| 18 | `15ddd28d…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 22715ms |
| 19 | `24d1e93f…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 20979ms |
| 20 | `05389f78…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 33778ms |
| 21 | `575f8679…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 19021ms |
| 22 | `a74ead3b…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 16748ms |
| 23 | `bbe0a93b…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 22390ms |
| 24 | `85d95ce5…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 32834ms |
| 25 | `76d10872…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | Yes | 5 | 6/10 | 15363ms |
| 26 | `36d567ba…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 21229ms |
| 27 | `7bbfcfe9…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 18169ms |
| 28 | `2696757c…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 17110ms |
| 29 | `dfb4e0cd…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 9/10 | 10181ms |
| 30 | `4c18ebae…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 24252ms |
| 31 | `cebf301e…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 22304ms |
| 32 | `c2e8f271…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 22867ms |
| 33 | `2ea2e5b5…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | Yes | 6 | 8/10 | 22634ms |
| 34 | `c357f0e2…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 24660ms |
| 35 | `a45bc83b…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 5 | 7/10 | 29434ms |
| 36 | `a10ec48c…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 22982ms |
| 37 | `fccaa4a1…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 29130ms |
| 38 | `f5d428fd…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | Yes | 7 | 6/10 | 27292ms |
| 39 | `2fa8e956…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 26713ms |
| 40 | `0e4fe8cd…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 22710ms |
| 41 | `a0ef404e…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 9/10 | 31055ms |
| 42 | `b7a5912e…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 5/10 | 22949ms |
| 43 | `aa071045…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 8/10 | 18035ms |
| 44 | `476db143…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 9/10 | 23427ms |
| 45 | `61f546a8…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 20074ms |
| 46 | `f3351922…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 17557ms |
| 47 | `61717508…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 28875ms |
| 48 | `0ed38524…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 17690ms |
| 49 | `87da214f…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 18295ms |
| 50 | `d025a41c…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 6/10 | 20513ms |
| 51 | `401a07f1…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 24811ms |
| 52 | `afe56d05…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 35245ms |
| 53 | `9a8c8e28…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 6/10 | 35803ms |
| 54 | `3a4c347c…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 21464ms |
| 55 | `ec2fccc9…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 39088ms |
| 56 | `8c8fc328…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 19125ms |
| 57 | `e222075d…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 6 | 4/10 | 31907ms |
| 58 | `c94452e4…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 19424ms |
| 59 | `75401f7c…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 3/10 | 23859ms |
| 60 | `a941b6d8…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 28430ms |
| 61 | `8079e27d…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 17129ms |
| 62 | `e21cd746…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 4/10 | 27706ms |
| 63 | `9e8607e7…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 43953ms |
| 64 | `c7d83f01…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 4 | 4/10 | 37874ms |
| 65 | `46b34f78…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 5/10 | 32269ms |
| 66 | `a1963a68…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 37671ms |
| 67 | `5f6c57dd…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 34110ms |
| 68 | `b39a5aa7…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 23166ms |
| 69 | `b78fd844…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 35941ms |
| 70 | `4520f882…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 20350ms |
| 71 | `ec591973…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 17367ms |
| 72 | `62f04c2f…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 17474ms |
| 73 | `3f821c2d…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 21087ms |
| 74 | `e996036e…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 22488ms |
| 75 | `327fbc21…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 4/10 | 23454ms |
| 76 | `6dcae3f5…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 4/10 | 23875ms |
| 77 | `1aecc095…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 26615ms |
| 78 | `0353ee0c…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 3/10 | 26247ms |
| 79 | `40a8c4b1…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 3/10 | 15421ms |
| 80 | `4d1a8410…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 11 | 3/10 | 19186ms |
| 81 | `8c823e32…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 34367ms |
| 82 | `eb54f575…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 7/10 | 31081ms |
| 83 | `11e1b169…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 8/10 | 33000ms |
| 84 | `a95a5829…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 32167ms |
| 85 | `22c0809b…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 9/10 | 34727ms |
| 86 | `bf68f2ad…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 6/10 | 19537ms |
| 87 | `efca245f…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 5/10 | 22682ms |
| 88 | `9e39df84…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 20059ms |
| 89 | `68d8d901…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 21385ms |
| 90 | `1752cb53…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 6 | 5/10 | 18940ms |
| 91 | `bd72994f…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 24974ms |
| 92 | `211d0093…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 14937ms |
| 93 | `d4525420…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 16915ms |
| 94 | `45c6237b…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 33481ms |
| 95 | `cecac8f9…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 5 | 6/10 | 27339ms |
| 96 | `8f9e8bcd…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 20183ms |
| 97 | `0fad6023…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 18465ms |
| 98 | `02314fc6…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 24945ms |
| 99 | `4d61a19a…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 25369ms |
| 100 | `6436ff9e…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 19592ms |
| 101 | `8a7b6fca…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 21409ms |
| 102 | `40a99a31…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 32944ms |
| 103 | `b9665ca1…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 5/10 | 26951ms |
| 104 | `c6269101…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 6 | 6/10 | 24967ms |
| 105 | `be830ca0…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 8 | 7/10 | 31213ms |
| 106 | `cd9efc18…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 28876ms |
| 107 | `a97369c7…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 36951ms |
| 108 | `3f625cb2…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 8/10 | 30360ms |
| 109 | `aad21e4c…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 31778ms |
| 110 | `8314d1b1…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 54368ms |
| 111 | `5e2b6aab…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 3 | 3/10 | 42388ms |
| 112 | `46fc494e…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | Yes | 6 | 4/10 | 56139ms |
| 113 | `3940b7e7…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 44513ms |
| 114 | `8077e700…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 4 | 4/10 | 41939ms |
| 115 | `5a2d70da…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 5/10 | 33209ms |
| 116 | `74d6e8b0…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 33350ms |
| 117 | `81db15ff…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 18719ms |
| 118 | `61b0946a…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 6/10 | 26936ms |
| 119 | `61e7b9c6…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 16465ms |
| 120 | `c9bf9801…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 33044ms |
| 121 | `f1be6436…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 5 | 3/10 | 17807ms |
| 122 | `41f6ef59…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 14557ms |
| 123 | `a0552909…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 22286ms |
| 124 | `6d2c8e55…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 13 | 3/10 | 24897ms |
| 125 | `4b98ccce…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 7 | 6/10 | 28363ms |
| 126 | `60221cd0…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 9/10 | 20190ms |
| 127 | `ef8719da…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 30002ms |
| 128 | `3baa0009…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 26801ms |
| 129 | `5d0feb24…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 34223ms |
| 130 | `6974adea…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 8 | 3/10 | 38957ms |
| 131 | `1a78e076…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 33139ms |
| 132 | `1b9ec237…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 24047ms |
| 133 | `0112fc9b…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 19631ms |
| 134 | `772e7524…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 18061ms |
| 135 | `e6429658…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 8/10 | 30182ms |
| 136 | `b5d2e6f1…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 20599ms |
| 137 | `f841ddcf…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 20208ms |
| 138 | `47ef842d…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 20011ms |
| 139 | `1137e2bb…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 19859ms |
| 140 | `c3525d4d…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 5 | 5/10 | 23548ms |
| 141 | `9a0d8d36…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 22397ms |
| 142 | `664a42e5…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 25606ms |
| 143 | `feb5eefc…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 28796ms |
| 144 | `3600de06…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 23050ms |
| 145 | `c657103b…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 26482ms |
| 146 | `ae0c1093…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 18650ms |
| 147 | `f9f82549…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 8 | 7/10 | 22841ms |
| 148 | `57b2cdf2…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 9/10 | 25290ms |
| 149 | `84322284…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 8/10 | 25820ms |
| 150 | `a46d5cd2…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | Yes | 5 | 6/10 | 23265ms |
| 151 | `6241e678…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 26307ms |
| 152 | `e14e32ba…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 29655ms |
| 153 | `b1a79ce1…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 21380ms |
| 154 | `e4f664ea…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 22002ms |
| 155 | `a079d38f…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 4/10 | 15435ms |
| 156 | `02aa1805…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 23868ms |
| 157 | `fd6129bd…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 22464ms |
| 158 | `ce864f41…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | Yes | 5 | 5/10 | 20859ms |
| 159 | `58ac1cc5…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | Yes | 7 | 8/10 | 26029ms |
| 160 | `3c19c6d1…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | Yes | 5 | 6/10 | 21130ms |
| 161 | `a99d85fc…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 25351ms |
| 162 | `55ddb773…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 28262ms |
| 163 | `1e5a1d7f…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 15556ms |
| 164 | `0419f1c3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 9/10 | 28399ms |
| 165 | `ed2bc14c…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 23490ms |
| 166 | `46bc7238…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 7 | 7/10 | 28327ms |
| 167 | `2d06bc0a…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 25975ms |
| 168 | `fd3ad420…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 8/10 | 17040ms |
| 169 | `0818571f…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 13 | 4/10 | 31603ms |
| 170 | `6074bba3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 22773ms |
| 171 | `5ad0c554…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 19173ms |
| 172 | `11593a50…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 5 | 4/10 | 24900ms |
| 173 | `94925f49…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 5 | 7/10 | 24879ms |
| 174 | `90f37ff3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 22005ms |
| 175 | `d3d255b2…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 8/10 | 24824ms |
| 176 | `403b9234…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 15263ms |
| 177 | `1bff4551…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 24011ms |
| 178 | `650adcb1…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 25210ms |
| 179 | `01d7e53e…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 6/10 | 27683ms |
| 180 | `a73fbc98…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 17490ms |
| 181 | `0ec25916…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 24636ms |
| 182 | `116e791e…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 30689ms |
| 183 | `dd724c67…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 26962ms |
| 184 | `7151c60a…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 5 | 3/10 | 21129ms |
| 185 | `90edba97…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 6 | 3/10 | 13410ms |
| 186 | `91060ff0…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 23838ms |
| 187 | `8384083a…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 1 | 2/10 | 22513ms |
| 188 | `045aba2e…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 18769ms |
| 189 | `f2986c1f…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 9079ms |
| 190 | `ffed32d8…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 20467ms |
| 191 | `b3573f20…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 17598ms |
| 192 | `a69be28f…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 18359ms |
| 193 | `788d2bc6…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 35723ms |
| 194 | `74ed1dc7…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 20135ms |
| 195 | `69a8ef86…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 24369ms |
| 196 | `ab81b076…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 37226ms |
| 197 | `d7cfae6f…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 26140ms |
| 198 | `19403010…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 19106ms |
| 199 | `7ed932dd…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 19700ms |
| 200 | `105f8ad0…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 17449ms |
| 201 | `b57efde3…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 19671ms |
| 202 | `15d37511…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 16931ms |
| 203 | `bb863dd9…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 13644ms |
| 204 | `fe0d3941…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 9/10 | 28841ms |
| 205 | `6a900a40…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 6 | 5/10 | 15052ms |
| 206 | `9efbcd35…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 24157ms |
| 207 | `1d4672c8…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 21597ms |
| 208 | `4de6a529…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 29566ms |
| 209 | `4c4dc603…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 27152ms |
| 210 | `bb499d9c…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 30153ms |
| 211 | `5349dd7b…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 30738ms |
| 212 | `a4a9195c…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 30104ms |
| 213 | `552b7dd0…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 26098ms |
| 214 | `11dcc268…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 4/10 | 21418ms |
| 215 | `76418a2c…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 6/10 | 13973ms |
| 216 | `0e386e32…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 23334ms |
| 217 | `7de33b48…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 22165ms |
| 218 | `854f3814…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 19221ms |
| 219 | `4122f866…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 28357ms |
| 220 | `2c249e0f…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 24197ms |

## QA Issues

### ✅ `83d10b06…` — score 6/10
- Population v2.xlsx lacks variance and sampling indicator columns required by the task.
- Sampled column shows zeros; sampled rows are not clearly marked with "1".
- Sample selection criteria coverage for specified entities, metrics, and geographies is not evidenced.
  > 💡 Update Population file with variance and sample flags, and clearly evidence criteria coverage in the sample.

### ❌ `7b08cd4d…` — score 2/10
- PnL Excel lacks populated revenue, expense, and net income figures.
- No breakdown by source or combined totals is included.
- Tour stop details and withholding tax calculations are missing.
  > 💡 Populate the Excel with complete data from reference files, calculations, and required breakdowns before submission.

### ❌ `7d7fc9a7…` — score 4/10
- Response provides no evidence schedules reconcile to GL balances.
- Claims PDF extraction limitation despite accessible invoice data.
- Workbook content not summarized to confirm required amortization details.
  > 💡 Include explicit reconciliation results and a concise summary of each tab’s completed calculations.

### ✅ `43dc9778…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes a summary, not confirmed completed Form 1040 line entries.
- No preview evidence that the PDF contains fully completed IRS forms and schedules.
- Produced files include source documents beyond the requested tax return deliverable.
  > 💡 Provide confirmation and excerpts showing the PDF contains fully completed, e-file-ready IRS forms.

### ✅ `ee09d943…` — score 6/10
- Text response summarizes intent but does not evidence completed April updates.
- Extra source files were produced instead of only the consolidated deliverable.
- No confirmation of TOC accuracy, tab updates, or CFO issues flagged.
  > 💡 Provide evidence the April workbook was fully updated and submit only the final consolidated file.

### ❌ `f84ea6ac…` — score 2/10
- Required research summary table is missing.
- Five academic articles are not identified or summarized.
- Document lacks key findings and government implications.
  > 💡 Add a one-page table summarizing five post-2020 public studies with required details.

### ✅ `27e8912c…` — score 6/10
- Organizational Action Items document lacks the required tracking table and columns.
- Checklist does not cite or link the NIH or another credible source.
- Images lack attribution or confirmation of public-domain status.
  > 💡 Add a structured tracking table, include NIH citation, and document image sources.

### ✅ `17111c03…` — score 8/10
- Text response describes deliverables instead of summarizing memo content.
- Memo preview appears truncated, limiting immediate verification.
- No explicit confirmation volunteers guidance wording matches requirements.
  > 💡 Briefly summarize memo key points in the text response for quicker reviewer validation.

### ❌ `c44e9b62…` — score 4/10
- Revised organizational chart shows fractional FTEs, which is invalid for staffing positions.
- Total FTE reduction incorrectly shows zero despite listed position reductions.
- Required 10% regional staff reduction is not reflected in regional positions.
  > 💡 Correct FTE math, apply regional reductions, and present whole-number FTE changes consistently.

### ✅ `99ac6944…` — score 7/10
- PDF lacks required web links to specific online retailers.
- Pricing sources are not explicitly cited or verified.
- No list of tools or spare accessories included.
  > 💡 Add retailer links, cite pricing sources, and include a small tools and spares list.

### ❌ `f9a1c16c…` — score 4/10
- Stage plot lacks clear visual icons and readable layout.
- Wedge numbering counterclockwise from stage right is unclear.
- Singer monitor wedges and vocal feeds are not explicitly shown.
  > 💡 Redesign the PDF with clear icons, spatial accuracy, and explicit labeling for monitors and IEM splits.

### ❌ `38889c3b…` — score 3/10
- Delivered stems are silent placeholders, not a real instrumental composition.
- Musical requirements like key changes, groove, and instrumentation are unmet.
- No evidence of synchronization or creative use of the provided drum track.
  > 💡 Produce and deliver actual audio content meeting all musical, technical, and formatting requirements.

### ❌ `ff85ee58…` — score 3/10
- No final audio mix was produced as required.
- Deliverable is a report instead of a 24-bit/48 kHz WAV file.
- Task requirements were declined due to environment limitations.
  > 💡 Provide the actual rendered audio mix meeting all technical specifications.

### ✅ `93b336f3…` — score 8/10
- Introduces a 49:51 JV ownership split not requested in the original task.
- Assumes Delhi as assembly location without justification or requirement.

### ✅ `15ddd28d…` — score 8/10
- Negotiation plan lacks quantified volume and pricing scenarios.
- Risk mitigation actions during the three-week cutoff are lightly detailed.
- Fleet and taxi segment transition is not explicitly addressed.
  > 💡 Add a concise action plan for the first 90 days with volumes, commercials, and interim supply safeguards.

### ✅ `24d1e93f…` — score 6/10
- Tooling amortization becomes negative in year four, indicating incorrect amortization logic.
- Input costs and volumes appear assumed without traceability to attached quotations.
- NPV sheets lack explicit NPV formula visibility or cash flow sign convention.
  > 💡 Correct tooling amortization, document all assumed inputs clearly, and validate NPV calculations with transparent formulas.

### ❌ `05389f78…` — score 4/10
- Quotation file lacks cost figures required for INR calculations and comparisons.
- CPO report does not present detailed cost analysis or numerical comparisons.
- Text response claims completed analysis despite missing input data.
  > 💡 Include complete quotation data and redo the report with explicit INR cost calculations and comparisons.

### ✅ `575f8679…` — score 6/10
- Data collection methods lack specificity on tools, timing, and responsible parties.
- Analysis plan is high-level without clear indicators, benchmarks, or statistical methods.
- Appendix lacks sample questions, links, or detailed instrument descriptions.
  > 💡 Expand methodological detail and enrich the appendix with concrete instruments and analytic plans.

### ❌ `a74ead3b…` — score 4/10
- Admits manuals were not accessed, violating requirement to closely follow provided content.
- No evidence presentations accurately reflect Sessions 13 and 14 manual specifics.
- Text response includes unnecessary confidence notation and lacks professional completeness.
  > 💡 Revise presentations using the official manuals directly and align all slides explicitly to Sessions 13 and 14.

### ✅ `bbe0a93b…` — score 7/10
- Resource guide was not created using an open web search as required.
- Resource guide omits categories like Transportation and Clothing.
- Spanish assessment retains English Yes/No labels instead of Spanish.
  > 💡 Conduct a brief web search to expand resources and localize all Spanish labels fully.

### ✅ `76d10872…` — score 6/10
- Text response is descriptive and does not summarize report contents.
- No evidence the PDF follows the Case Creation Guide structure.
- Extraneous CONFIDENCE tag is unprofessional and unnecessary.
  > 💡 Include a brief executive summary and confirm guide compliance in the response.

### ✅ `36d567ba…` — score 6/10
- Question 11 on high-risk status is truncated and incomplete.
- High-risk status topic lacks a complete yes/no prompt with follow-up detail.
  > 💡 Complete and clarify Question 11 to fully address high-risk status with a yes/no and explanatory follow-up.

### ✅ `4c18ebae…` — score 6/10
- Text response defers work to files instead of directly addressing the task.
- SAR narrative appears truncated and conclusion is incomplete.
- Excel transaction files content and alignment to narrative are not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Summarize investigative findings in-text and ensure all deliverables are complete and fully aligned.

### ✅ `cebf301e…` — score 8/10
- No explicit analytics or success metrics defined for the customer portal.
- In-browser PDF export approach lacks concrete technical detail.
  > 💡 Add a brief analytics plan and specify the PDF generation strategy to improve completeness.

### ✅ `c2e8f271…` — score 8/10
- Backend testing standards for Node services are not explicitly defined.
- Linting or static analysis enforcement beyond Prettier is not addressed.
  > 💡 Add brief backend testing and linting standards to strengthen consistency across the stack.

### ✅ `2ea2e5b5…` — score 8/10
- Strategic level classification details are not explicitly listed in the response.
- Text response does not explicitly show the activity-to-segment mapping tables.
- Confidence tag is nonstandard for professional deliverables.
  > 💡 Include explicit tables defining margin impact, time sensitivity, and strategic level mappings in the deliverable.

### ✅ `c357f0e2…` — score 5/10
- Only about 45 test cases provided instead of required 80–100.
- Several modules and edge-case scenarios appear insufficiently covered.
- Column naming includes an extra unnamed column header anomaly.
  > 💡 Expand the test plan to 80–100 cases with fuller module, role, and edge-case coverage.

### ✅ `a45bc83b…` — score 7/10
- Diagram contains visible typos in multiple service labels.
- Use of official GCP icons in the diagram is unclear.
- Diagram visual fidelity is minimal compared to the reference architecture.
  > 💡 Correct diagram typos and rebuild the PDF using official GCP icons matching the reference style.

### ❌ `a10ec48c…` — score 3/10
- Document lacks required tables with five specified columns.
- No restaurant entries, links, hours, descriptions, directions, or categories are included.
- Restaurants are not sourced from the specified website or verified as open.
  > 💡 Populate the document with fully completed tables for each cuisine category using verified Downtown Sarasota restaurants.

### ✅ `fccaa4a1…` — score 7/10
- PDF lacks visual icons to organize sections as requested.
- Image is a placeholder without documented royalty-free or Google source.
- Tour operator details are generic and not explicitly sourced from TakeWalks.com.
  > 💡 Add section icons, properly sourced Statue of Liberty image, and explicitly cite TakeWalks.com details.

### ✅ `f5d428fd…` — score 6/10
- Images are placeholders, not verified royalty-free photos from legitimate sources.
- No image is provided for Day 7 destination.
- Research sources are mentioned but not cited or evidenced.
  > 💡 Replace placeholders with properly sourced royalty-free images and add clear citations for research references.

### ❌ `2fa8e956…` — score 4/10
- Does not list all wineries within a one-hour drive; only five are included.
- Document lacks cited sources for wineries, distances, and drive times.
- Required formatting and embedded photo are not evidenced in the document preview.
  > 💡 Expand to a comprehensive list with citations, verify formatting, and embed the royalty-free image.

### ✅ `0e4fe8cd…` — score 6/10
- Incorrect airport code used for Istanbul; primary airport is IST, not ISL.
- Some service providers appear generic without confirmed availability or bookings.
- Limited inclusion of high-value local contacts beyond hotel management.
  > 💡 Verify factual details like airport codes and strengthen vetted local connections.

### ✅ `b7a5912e…` — score 5/10
- Total revenue in daily summary does not match category, booking, and payment totals.
- Payment method and booking source revenues sum to only half the reported total revenue.
- Revenue consistency across report sections is not validated or explained.
  > 💡 Recalculate and reconcile total revenue across all sheets to ensure consistency.

### ✅ `aa071045…` — score 8/10
- Damage type breakdown totals are not explicitly summarized on the report summary sheet.
  > 💡 Add a clear Dent vs Scratch totals section or chart to the summary for faster insight.

### ✅ `476db143…` — score 9/10
- Email notice lacks specific contact information for scheduling changes.
  > 💡 Add a phone number or email for residents to request alternate inspection dates.

### ✅ `61f546a8…` — score 6/10
- Section 1 omits M30 carpet replacement despite being required and listed in Section 2.
- Vendor schedule consistency with provided carpet vendor availability is not demonstrated.
- Make-ready date adjustments are not clearly validated against the availability report for all units.
  > 💡 Reconcile vendor listings across sections and explicitly verify all dates against vendor availability and make-ready deadlines.

### ✅ `f3351922…` — score 8/10
- Benefits section omits clarification that military service does not receive matching contributions.
- Email uses a generic salutation and signature without client-specific personalization.
  > 💡 Add brief clarification on military versus civilian matching rules and personalize the greeting and signature.

### ❌ `61717508…` — score 4/10
- Required PDFs were not delivered; only PPTX files were provided.
- Training deck length and PDF format requirements were not verified or met.
- Role-play examples were not confirmed as a separate PDF with three clear scenarios.

### ✅ `0ed38524…` — score 6/10
- District summary PDF exceeds the one-page requirement.
- Summary lists raw comments instead of synthesized themes by district.
- Talking points appear incomplete or truncated in content preview.
  > 💡 Condense summaries into one synthesized page per requirements and fully flesh out concise talking points.

### ✅ `d025a41c…` — score 6/10
- Produced extra Case One, Two, Three files not requested.
- Bold headings and 1.5 line spacing are not clearly evidenced.
- Text response describes intent instead of summarizing completed work.
  > 💡 Deliver only the single formatted Case Feedback document and confirm required formatting explicitly.

### ✅ `401a07f1…` — score 6/10
- Reference news outlets are mentioned but no clickable hyperlinks are provided.
- Text response does not include or summarise the editorial content.
- Verification links for specific factual claims are insufficient.
  > 💡 Add explicit hyperlinks to specific Nature, Science, Scientific American, and Guardian articles cited.

### ✅ `afe56d05…` — score 6/10
- Document appears significantly shorter than the required 2,200–2,300 words.
- Text response includes irrelevant LibreOffice and PNG conversion commentary.
  > 💡 Expand the document to the specified length and remove irrelevant production notes.

### ✅ `9a8c8e28…` — score 6/10
- Framework guide is overly brief and lacks detailed best‑practice framework application.
- Checklist content appears truncated and incomplete for daily editorial use.
- Quiz depth and answer explanations are insufficiently evidenced in preview.
  > 💡 Expand all PDFs with more detailed guidance, fuller checklist items, and a robust quiz with explanations.

### ✅ `3a4c347c…` — score 8/10
- VT, radio, and podcast re-versioning cadence per week is not explicitly specified.
- Country diversity across Asia could be more explicitly mapped week by week.
- Budget breakdown lacks clear line items beyond travel and freelancer costs.
  > 💡 Add a clearer weekly multimedia plan, explicit country mapping, and a more detailed budget table.

### ✅ `ec2fccc9…` — score 7/10
- Secondary keyword list not clearly labeled at article end.
- Pull quote caption placement is not clearly identifiable.
- Some headings may not be styled explicitly as H2 or H3.
  > 💡 Clearly label secondary keywords, format headings with Word styles, and mark the pull quote caption explicitly.

### ✅ `8c8fc328…` — score 8/10
- Estimated runtime states 5 minutes, but timestamps total approximately 6 minutes.
- Script references narration without clearly indicating adapted versus original voiceover content.
  > 💡 Align the stated runtime with timestamps and explicitly note where reference voiceover is adapted.

### ❌ `e222075d…` — score 4/10
- No 30-second H.264 MP4 video export was delivered.
- Scratch voiceover and edited music track are not included.
- Actual watermarked preview clips were not assembled into an edit.
  > 💡 Provide a complete 30-second MP4 edit with scratch VO, music, and watermarked footage assembled.

### ❌ `c94452e4…` — score 4/10
- No actual 15-second H.264 MP4 export was delivered.
- Stock footage and music were not sourced, edited, or included.
- Supers from the provided PSD were not applied in a finished video.
  > 💡 Produce and export the actual 15-second broadcast-ready MP4 using stock footage, music, and provided supers.

### ❌ `75401f7c…` — score 3/10
- No final edited MP4 video was delivered.
- Output provides a plan instead of completing the required edit.
- Required deliverable format and resolution were not produced.
  > 💡 Produce and deliver the actual 01:20 MP4 showreel matching all specified technical and creative requirements.

### ❌ `a941b6d8…` — score 3/10
- No composited video file was delivered.
- Required VFX execution was replaced by planning documents.
- Base clip matching specs and final render not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Produce the actual composited video matching all specifications or renegotiate deliverables beforehand.

### ❌ `8079e27d…` — score 3/10
- No actual S&P 500 data populated; workbook contains only placeholder notes.
- Does not include all 500 companies or real sub-sector aggregates.
- Company-level sheet missing required 'No. of Companies' field.
  > 💡 Populate the Excel with complete, current S&P 500 company and sub-sector data from public sources.

### ❌ `e21cd746…` — score 4/10
- Final deliverable was not converted to PDF as explicitly required.
- Only a PPTX file was produced with no slide content preview or verification.
- Public comps and valuation multiples are not evidenced in the output.
  > 💡 Provide a client-ready PDF with up to five completed slides including private targets and public comps valuations.

### ✅ `9e8607e7…` — score 6/10
- Required PDF export is missing; only a PPTX file was delivered.
- Slide count and required section coverage cannot be verified from provided materials.
  > 💡 Export the presentation to PDF and confirm slide count and section coverage explicitly.

### ❌ `c7d83f01…` — score 4/10
- Missing the required Python notebook with implemented pricing methodologies.
- No evidence of actual code for binomial, finite difference, or Monte Carlo methods.
- Text response promises deliverables not actually provided.
  > 💡 Provide a complete, well-documented Python notebook implementing and comparing the required methodologies.

### ✅ `46b34f78…` — score 5/10
- Bond analysis uses unnamed representative issuers instead of specific companies.
- Report content appears truncated with incomplete sentences.
- No explicit use or citation of provided reference data sources.
  > 💡 Name specific issuers, complete all sections, and explicitly reference the provided public data sources.

### ❌ `a1963a68…` — score 3/10
- Required PDF format not delivered; only a PPTX file was produced.
- No evidence the deck contains 5–6 core strategy slides with data-backed content.
- Text response describes intent but does not present the actual strategy content.
  > 💡 Convert the deck to PDF and ensure it includes 5–6 data-supported strategy slides meeting all specified areas.

### ✅ `b78fd844…` — score 8/10
- Text response summarizes deliverables rather than presenting substantive analysis.
  > 💡 Include a concise executive summary of findings directly in the text response.

### ❌ `4520f882…` — score 4/10
- Text response describes intent rather than confirming implemented spreadsheet features.
- No evidence the Excel model enforces specific CBA rules or flags conflicts.
- Payroll category totals by person are not demonstrated or verified.
  > 💡 Provide a brief walkthrough or screenshots verifying the Excel model implements and validates CBA requirements.

### ✅ `ec591973…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes intent rather than presenting the actual strategy content.
- Slide content cannot be verified against requirements due to lack of preview.
- Extraneous confidence tag adds no professional value.
  > 💡 Include a concise summary or text extract of the slide to validate strategic requirements.

### ✅ `62f04c2f…` — score 7/10
- Excel form lacks required signature spaces for Sales Rep, GM, and Sales Manager.
- Excel form does not note prepaid freight and restocking fee at the bottom.
  > 💡 Update the Excel form to add missing policy notes and all required signature and date fields.

### ❌ `3f821c2d…` — score 4/10
- Omni-level flow and seasonal turn calculations are missing.
- EOM Inventory and Turn cells are blank with no working formulas.
- Side-by-side Store, E-commerce, and Omni tables are incomplete and improperly structured.
  > 💡 Rebuild the workbook with complete Store, E-commerce, and Omni tables including formulas, EOMs, and seasonal turns.

### ❌ `327fbc21…` — score 4/10
- Topside May plan is +72% vs LY, not the required -15% target.
- Summary percent vs LY calculations are incorrect for Total and Comp Stores.
- Forecast does not align overall volume to the stated topside guidance.
  > 💡 Rebalance store plans to achieve an overall -15% comp decline and recalculate summary metrics.

### ❌ `6dcae3f5…` — score 4/10
- Required ACGME graduation requirement analysis and PGY attainment table is missing.
- Excel sheets have unnamed columns and unclear metric labels.
- Yearly interval calculations by PGY are not shown or separated.
  > 💡 Revise the Excel file to include labeled metrics, PGY-year intervals, and ACGME requirement attainment per resident.

### ✅ `1aecc095…` — score 6/10
- Telehealth Roadmap lacks Visio-style visual workflow content and decision paths.
- Use of attached reference materials is not demonstrated or cited.
- An extra unrequested file was produced.
  > 💡 Add a true visual roadmap with flow shapes, cite reference sources, and remove unrequested files.

### ❌ `0353ee0c…` — score 3/10
- PDF lacks compiled presumptive conditions, locations, and dates required by task.
- Content merely lists links instead of consolidating information from Document B.
- Document is not exhaustive and omits cancer and non-cancer condition lists.
  > 💡 Extract and organize all presumptive exposures, conditions, locations, and dates into tables within the PDF.

### ❌ `40a8c4b1…` — score 3/10
- Text response describes intent, not confirmed completion of scheduling tasks.
- Produced files include reference documents unnecessarily copied.
- No evidence unused optional topics were identified and highlighted.
  > 💡 Verify the Excel content meets all scheduling rules and submit only the completed schedule file.

### ❌ `4d1a8410…` — score 3/10
- Interview schedule lacks detailed table with room rotations, applicants, breaks, and buffers.
- Required constraints not implemented: Dr. Jones 8:50 break and Dr. Garrett early departure.
- Sample itineraries are incomplete and omit lunch, breaks, and full-day activities.
  > 💡 Rebuild the schedule as a complete tabular Word document fully satisfying all timing and constraint requirements.

### ✅ `8c823e32…` — score 8/10
- PDF length is brief and may limit operational detail depth.
  > 💡 Consider expanding sections with detailed procedures, diagrams, and compliance checklists.

### ✅ `eb54f575…` — score 7/10
- PDF content is truncated in the conclusion section.
- Final recommendation section appears incomplete.
- Document length seems insufficient for executive report depth.
  > 💡 Regenerate the PDF ensuring all sections are complete and properly rendered.

### ✅ `11e1b169…` — score 8/10
- KRS 503.090 section lacks specific deadly force conditions and statutory language.
- Content is mostly paragraph-based, limiting quick field reference usability.
- No citations or case law references included for officer follow-up.
  > 💡 Add bullet-point checklists and key statutory excerpts to enhance field usability.

### ✅ `bf68f2ad…` — score 6/10
- Weekly demand values in the catch-up plan do not match the provided capacity sheet data.
- An unnecessary extra file was included beyond the requested deliverables.
- The narrative response describes intent but does not summarize the actual plan results.
  > 💡 Align demand figures with the source data and include a concise summary of achieved backlog reduction timing.

### ✅ `efca245f…` — score 5/10
- Capacity increase to 135/day starting February 5 is not reflected in schedules.
- Stat holidays are not clearly excluded from daily production plans.
- Scenario 3 assumes overtime despite stated financial inability to pay overtime.
  > 💡 Revise schedules to reflect capacity changes, holidays, and align assumptions strictly with stated constraints.

### ❌ `9e39df84…` — score 4/10
- Dashboard lacks PivotTables, charts, and data validation controls.
- Operator data only includes Week 1, not Weeks 1–48 structure.
- Extra unnamed columns indicate improper table formatting.
  > 💡 Add full 48-week structured data, PivotTables with slicers, charts, and proper formatting.

### ✅ `68d8d901…` — score 6/10
- No explicit calculation showing four-week throughput meets 250,000-pound finished product target.
- Production sequences lack verified sub-step durations per dryer tied to personnel.
- Output includes regenerated reference files without justification.
  > 💡 Add clear throughput math, validated cycle counts, and timed per-dryer sequences proving the target is met.

### ✅ `1752cb53…` — score 5/10
- Text response is generic and lacks confirmation of rule compliance.
- Includes unprofessional CONFIDENCE tag.
- No evidence provided that calculations meet planning constraints.
  > 💡 Summarize key results and explicitly confirm all test rules are satisfied.

### ❌ `bd72994f…` — score 3/10
- Presentation delivered as PPTX, not the required PDF format.
- No specific brand or official 2025 resort collection was selected.
- Looks are conceptual text, not styled outfits from an official lookbook.
  > 💡 Create a 4–6 slide branded PDF using official 2025 resort looks and imagery from one collection.

### ✅ `cecac8f9…` — score 6/10
- Uses USD currency instead of UK GBP.
- Team Launch deck is only one page and lacks instructional depth.
- Promotional offers are not specified or aligned to Marketing Email.
  > 💡 Localize to GBP, expand the deck content, and clearly detail promotions aligned to references.

### ✅ `8f9e8bcd…` — score 7/10
- Homework section appears incomplete or truncated.
- Homework lacks a due date line.
- Homework lacks a printed name line.
  > 💡 Complete the homework section with required fields, due date, and name line.

### ✅ `0fad6023…` — score 8/10
- Pan layout is tabular, not a true visual case diagram.
- Conditional formatting behavior is described but not clearly validated.
- Several columns have blank headers, reducing clarity.
  > 💡 Add a simple visual block layout and clearly labeled columns to improve usability and clarity.

### ✅ `02314fc6…` — score 8/10
- Checklist lacks GM and Loss Prevention signature or acknowledgment fields.
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing key checklist features.
- No explicit section-level scoring or weighting is defined.
  > 💡 Add GM and LP sign-off fields and clarify scoring details to strengthen accountability.

### ✅ `4d61a19a…` — score 6/10
- Excel template lacks store projection and manager sign-off fields.
- Merchandising notes section is missing from the Excel template.
- Columns are unnamed and field ownership/editability is unclear.
  > 💡 Add clearly labeled, protected sections for store projections, sign-off, and merchandising notes with proper column headers.

### ✅ `6436ff9e…` — score 8/10
- One sentence in the testimonials section appears truncated and incomplete.
- Marketing consent and privacy disclosure are not explicitly stated.
  > 💡 Complete the truncated line and add a brief consent and privacy notice section.

### ❌ `8a7b6fca…` — score 4/10
- Required PDF process map was not produced.
- Only a PPTX file was delivered, violating file type requirements.
- Text response is descriptive but provides no actual process map content.
  > 💡 Generate and include the finalized process map as a PDF with verified visual content.

### ✅ `40a99a31…` — score 7/10
- Camera quantity minimum of six is not explicitly specified or documented.
- Static LIDAR requirement for six distinct zones is not clearly itemized.
- Pressure mat quantity per CNC is not explicitly defined.
  > 💡 Explicitly document required quantities per device to fully satisfy safety and coverage requirements.

### ✅ `b9665ca1…` — score 5/10
- Schematic conflicts between series E-stop requirement and parallel stop button description.
- Required ES1.SIG, ES2.SIG, ES3.SIG NO PLC indicator wiring not shown.
- Several wire labels are incorrect or garbled, reducing assembly usability.
  > 💡 Revise the schematic to exactly match wiring topology, labels, and button box requirements specified.

### ✅ `c6269101…` — score 6/10
- Text response is high-level and lacks concrete analytical findings.
- No explicit identification of most variable process in narrative.
- Capability and stability conclusions are not clearly summarized for leadership.
  > 💡 Include explicit findings, variability ranking, and clear capability and stability conclusions in the summary.

### ✅ `be830ca0…` — score 7/10
- Results interpretation for ANOVA and control charts is not explicitly documented.
- Use of Python charts may not meet expectation of Minitab-equivalent outputs.
- Text response describes intent but does not summarize actual analytical findings.
  > 💡 Add explicit statistical conclusions and operational insights directly in the presentation slides.

### ❌ `cd9efc18…` — score 3/10
- PDF is only one page, not the required 8–11 pages.
- Will content is incomplete and omits required beneficiaries, executors, trusts, and fiduciary powers.
- Execution details are missing, including date, witnesses, and self-proving affidavit.
  > 💡 Redraft a complete Texas-compliant will and regenerate a full 8–11 page executed-ready PDF.

### ❌ `a97369c7…` — score 4/10
- Memo misstates Moelis as a Delaware Supreme Court decision.
- Delaware Senate Bill 313 analysis appears missing or insufficiently addressed.
- Text response promised hyperlinks and formatting not clearly reflected in the file.
  > 💡 Revise the memo to correct case citations and explicitly analyze SB 313’s impact on stockholder agreements.

### ✅ `3f625cb2…` — score 8/10
- Conclusion preview appears truncated, risking incomplete recommendations.
- California private right of action discussion is high-level and could be more precise.
  > 💡 Add a concise final section with concrete next steps and clarify California enforcement versus private claims.

### ✅ `aad21e4c…` — score 6/10
- Anti-dilution minimum 10% top-up mechanics are not clearly specified.
- Minority-investor consent rights over all listed extraordinary actions are not clearly enumerated.
- Exempt issuance carve-outs for anti-dilution and pre-emptive rights are insufficiently detailed.
  > 💡 Add explicit anti-dilution, consent rights, and exempt issuance provisions with clear definitions and mechanics.

### ✅ `8314d1b1…` — score 8/10
- Text response is a meta-description rather than substantive content.
  > 💡 Provide a brief substantive summary in the text response alongside the delivered file.

### ❌ `5e2b6aab…` — score 3/10
- Required PDF drawings were not delivered; only DOCX files are provided.
- STEP ZIP appears to contain placeholder or non-functional CAD models.
- Design requirements are described but not demonstrated in models or drawings.
  > 💡 Provide actual STEP geometry and ANSI B PDF drawings that clearly implement all stated requirements.

### ❌ `46fc494e…` — score 4/10
- No explicit numeric back-face temperatures or margins are stated in the report text.
- Model description conflicts: in-plane conduction used to assess through-thickness back-face temperature.
- Panel thickness implied by 22 nodes at 0.05 m is unrealistic and unaddressed.
  > 💡 Include explicit computed temperatures, margins, and reconcile model geometry with physical thickness.

### ❌ `8077e700…` — score 4/10
- No actual analytical report content was provided, only an intent statement.
- Required PDF report was not produced; only a DOCX file exists.
- Results lack analysis of AISI 1045 data and treatment efficiency trends.
  > 💡 Produce the full analytical report in PDF with data-driven results, figures, and recommendations.

### ✅ `5a2d70da…` — score 5/10
- Master Tool List lacks required subtotal and Suffolk County sales tax grand total.
- Manufacturing steps file has malformed headers and incomplete operation details.
- Budget compliance and total spend versus $7,500 are not explicitly shown.
  > 💡 Add clear cost totals with tax, fix file formatting, and explicitly demonstrate budget compliance.

### ✅ `74d6e8b0…` — score 7/10
- Citations and reference list are not clearly visible or enumerated in the document preview.
- Generated text includes irrelevant notes about offline environment and PNG checks.
- Specific guideline sources and societies are not explicitly named in the visible sections.
  > 💡 Add a clearly labeled references section citing specific U.S. and international menopause guidelines.

### ✅ `81db15ff…` — score 7/10
- Pennsylvania NP independent practice status appears outdated or inaccurate.
- PA physician chart-signature requirement is oversimplified and may vary by state.
- Some PA supervision ratios may be inaccurate or overly generalized.
  > 💡 Verify all scope-of-practice details against current state statutes and licensing board guidance.

### ✅ `61b0946a…` — score 6/10
- Original task requirements were incomplete and not fully addressed in the proposal.
- Cost savings analysis lacks explicit calculations tied to freeze/thaw utilization limits.
- Proposal omits operational workflow for scheduling shared cadaver use across departments.
  > 💡 Clarify assumptions, add detailed utilization math, and include a concrete interdepartmental scheduling plan.

### ❌ `61e7b9c6…` — score 3/10
- Formulary largely incomplete with many blank rows and missing required medications.
- Incorrect generic listed for Bijuva, indicating a serious clinical accuracy error.
- Off-label menopause treatments and price sourcing details are not adequately included.
  > 💡 Complete the template fully, correct drug inaccuracies, and add comprehensive FDA-approved and off-label therapies with verified prices.

### ✅ `c9bf9801…` — score 7/10
- 4-month and 8-month evaluation forms are referenced but not included or linked.
- CDC branding and logo integration are not clearly demonstrated in the guide.
- Monthly timeline milestones and deliverables are not fully visible in preview.
  > 💡 Add linked evaluation forms, verify branding elements, and clearly present the full month-by-month timeline.

### ❌ `f1be6436…` — score 3/10
- Uses placeholder screenshots and estimated costs instead of real-time sourced data.
- Several required sections and calculations are incomplete or missing.
- Physician funding breakdown and discretionary fund impacts are not fully calculated.
  > 💡 Redo the document using live sources, real screenshots, complete itemization, and full funding calculations.

### ✅ `41f6ef59…` — score 7/10
- Spreadsheet lacks visible dropdowns or checkboxes for efficient data entry.
- Excel file name uses underscores instead of specified spaced title.
- Email subject does not explicitly state third declined payment.
  > 💡 Add data validation dropdowns and checkboxes, adjust file naming, and clarify the email subject.

### ❌ `6d2c8e55…` — score 3/10
- Article PDFs are placeholders, not actual peer-reviewed accessible articles.
- No evidence dates, spacing, weekday preference, or holidays were properly validated.
- Room Availability file update and specific booking details are not clearly demonstrated.
  > 💡 Replace placeholders with real open-access articles and document verified scheduling compliance in the files.

### ✅ `4b98ccce…` — score 6/10
- Excel content not verified against Patient Information Sheet for accuracy and completeness.
- Signature lines with employee name and ID not confirmed beneath each Excel table.
- Letters’ inclusion of exact HIPAA clauses and template elements not fully validated.
  > 💡 Verify Excel data accuracy, confirm signatures, and audit letters against provided clauses and templates.

### ✅ `ef8719da…` — score 7/10
- Hyperlinks to background sources are not visible in the provided content preview.
- A tentative draft submission timeline is not evident in the preview.
- Text response summarizes intent instead of presenting the pitch directly.
  > 💡 Ensure the document explicitly includes hyperlinks and a clear reporting timeline.

### ✅ `3baa0009…` — score 7/10
- Article does not explicitly state negative global growth as required.
- No specific forecast numbers for global, US, or China growth.
- Chart content is not described or verified to include 2024, 2025, and 2027.
  > 💡 Explicitly state negative growth, add key forecast figures, and confirm chart years and values.

### ✅ `5d0feb24…` — score 8/10
- Explicit citations to arXiv:2401.11815 are not clearly evident throughout the redlines.
- The claim about studying such stars "for the first time" risks overstating prior TRAPPIST-1 research.
- Some editor notes reference sources generally without inline hyperlinks shown in preview.
  > 💡 Add clear inline citations to the specific arXiv paper and tighten language around novelty claims.

### ❌ `6974adea…` — score 3/10
- The response does not include the actual feature article text.
- Compliance with word count, style guide, and UK English cannot be verified.
- SEO headline, standfirst, and subheadings are not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Provide the full article text or a content preview to enable proper quality verification.

### ✅ `1a78e076…` — score 7/10
- Document length appears below required 10–15 pages.
- Explicit morbidity, mortality, and financial impact sections are not clearly demonstrated.
- Page count and reference count compliance are not verifiable from content.
  > 💡 Expand content to meet page requirements and explicitly address morbidity, mortality, and financial impact with citations.

### ✅ `1b9ec237…` — score 7/10
- Cannot verify slide count is 20 or fewer.
- Pre-test question, case study, and speaker notes cannot be confirmed.
- Inclusion of illustration and properly formatted references is unverified.
  > 💡 Provide a brief slide-by-slide outline or screenshots to confirm all required elements.

### ✅ `0112fc9b…` — score 8/10
- Visual acuity not formally assessed despite reported blurry vision.
- Guardian involvement and consent not addressed for a minor patient.
- Plan justification for no imaging could reference a specific clinical decision rule.
  > 💡 Add visual acuity testing, document parent communication, and cite PECARN or similar imaging criteria.

### ✅ `772e7524…` — score 8/10
- Plan lacks explicit follow-up timeframe and return precautions.
- Disposition decision for outpatient versus inpatient care not clearly stated.
  > 💡 Add clear follow-up instructions, return precautions, and explicitly document outpatient management rationale.

### ✅ `e6429658…` — score 8/10
- Appeal letter page length cannot be verified from provided preview.
  > 💡 Include a brief table of contents or page numbering to confirm appeal length.

### ✅ `b5d2e6f1…` — score 6/10
- Data tab contains raw data instead of a pivot table as requested.
- Sales by Brand column headers and order do not exactly match requirements.
- Grand totals are not clearly labeled or verified on summary tabs.
  > 💡 Revise pivots to match exact tab purposes, headers, order, and clearly display grand totals.

### ✅ `47ef842d…` — score 6/10
- Weeks of Supply values are unrealistically high, indicating flawed sales rate aggregation.
- Weekly unit rate of sale appears incorrectly averaged across stores.
- Active store definition including out-of-stock percentage is not clearly validated.
  > 💡 Recalculate weekly sales and WOS at store-level before aggregating to UPC summary.

### ✅ `1137e2bb…` — score 8/10
- SKU summary is a static table, not a pivot with built-in drill-down.
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing completed analysis.
  > 💡 Convert the SKU summary into a pivot table with PO-level drill-down enabled.

### ✅ `c3525d4d…` — score 5/10
- Original total program cost does not match Production email figures.
- Units with overage are shown as decimals instead of whole units.
- Store comparison lacks explicit identification of removed stores.
  > 💡 Recalculate costs and units precisely and clearly list added and removed stores from the comparison.

### ✅ `9a0d8d36…` — score 8/10
- Slide content cannot be verified from provided preview.
  > 💡 Include a brief slide-by-slide outline or screenshots to verify calculations and tax explanations.

### ✅ `664a42e5…` — score 7/10
- Presentation content cannot be verified because PPT slides are not previewable.
- Text response summarizes intent but does not describe actual slide content.
- Accuracy of 2025 gift tax exclusion details cannot be confirmed.
  > 💡 Include a brief slide-by-slide summary or export slides to verifiable images for QA review.

### ✅ `3600de06…` — score 7/10
- No explicit confirmation the presentation contains exactly ten slides.
- FINRA and NAIC sources are summarized without clear in-slide citations.
- Text response does not verify each required comparison is explicitly covered.
  > 💡 Add a slide outline with counts and explicit FINRA/NAIC citations to strengthen compliance.

### ✅ `c657103b…` — score 6/10
- PowerPoint does not use the required business digital tunnel template.
- Excel tax calculations appear overly simplified and not tied to stated marginal brackets.
- Roth conversion amounts and methodology are not clearly documented year by year.
  > 💡 Align templates and tax modeling more closely with stated requirements and clearly document assumptions.

### ✅ `ae0c1093…` — score 8/10
- Observation form lacks three solid horizontal lines under each header.
  > 💡 Add three clearly visible solid lines beneath every header for handwritten notes.

### ✅ `f9f82549…` — score 7/10
- PDF flowchart is a bullet list, not a visual flowchart diagram.
- An extra flowchart PPTX was produced though only a PDF was requested.
- PDF content is minimal for a professional investigative procedure.
  > 💡 Convert the PDF into a true visual flowchart and remove unrequested deliverables.

### ✅ `57b2cdf2…` — score 9/10
- Surveillance start time states 7:25 p.m. despite declared 7:30 p.m. window.
- Surveillance continued until 1:20 a.m., exceeding the client-requested end time.
  > 💡 Align stated surveillance window exactly with observed start and end times.

### ✅ `84322284…` — score 8/10
- Text response provides intent summary but lacks substantive analytical findings.
- Confidence tag is nonstandard and unnecessary for professional deliverables.
  > 💡 Include a concise executive summary of key findings and concerns directly in the text response.

### ✅ `a46d5cd2…` — score 6/10
- Photograph sections contain repeated placeholders without visible embedded images.
- Report does not explicitly reference or caption specific photographs as evidence.
  > 💡 Embed and caption key photographs directly within the PDF report sections.

### ✅ `e14e32ba…` — score 6/10
- Business hours are missing for all listed restaurants.
- Exact street addresses and locations are not provided.
- Image fields link to websites, not actual photos.
  > 💡 Add addresses, hours, and proper photo links to fully meet the brief.

### ✅ `b1a79ce1…` — score 7/10
- Text response lacks concrete details of the moodboard’s actual visual contents.
- No explicit confirmation the PNG includes visible color palette swatches.
- Unnecessary CONFIDENCE tag adds noise to a professional deliverable.
  > 💡 Add a brief summary of key colors and reference imagery explicitly shown in the moodboard.

### ❌ `e4f664ea…` — score 4/10
- The text response promises a screenplay instead of presenting the script content.
- Compliance with screenplay formatting and show-not-tell cannot be verified from the response.
- Screenplay PDF content is not previewed or evidenced in the output.
  > 💡 Include the full screenplay content or clear excerpts demonstrating correct format and execution.

### ❌ `a079d38f…` — score 4/10
- Excel sheet lacks calculated estimated costs, subtotal, and total values.
- Time estimates do not clearly reflect shoot days and setup hours.
- Video list is not itemized or mapped to shoot days or packages.
  > 💡 Complete the Excel with formulas, clear day-based scheduling, and explicit mapping to the provided video packages.

### ❌ `02aa1805…` — score 3/10
- No Illinois EPA data was retrieved or summarized; Excel contains no well records.
- Required screening and identification of viable wells were not performed.
- Email provides placeholders instead of highlighted top options and recommendations.
  > 💡 Retrieve IEPA factsheet data, populate the workbook, and provide concrete well recommendations.

### ✅ `fd6129bd…` — score 8/10
- Text response uses future tense instead of summarizing delivered document contents.
  > 💡 Add a brief summary of key SOP sections and form fields in the response.

### ✅ `ce864f41…` — score 5/10
- Findings document provides no actual utilization results or identified departments, individuals, or projects.
- Stakeholder Registry required as a workbook tab but only provided as a separate file.
- Tracker evidence of 15% admin time exclusion and calculations is not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Include quantified analysis with named departments, individuals, and projects, and embed the Stakeholder Registry tab in the tracker.

### ✅ `58ac1cc5…` — score 8/10
- The official Change Control Form is largely unfilled beyond the separate summary PDF.
- Text response describes deliverables rather than summarizing key conclusions or decisions.
  > 💡 Fully complete the formal Change Control Form fields to strengthen compliance and audit readiness.

### ✅ `3c19c6d1…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes intent instead of summarising actual October progress.
- Slide content cannot be verified against specified slide-by-slide requirements.
- Inclusion of CONFIDENCE tag is unnecessary for professional deliverable.
  > 💡 Provide a brief written summary of October outcomes and explicitly confirm each required slide’s content.

### ✅ `a99d85fc…` — score 7/10
- Notes section below the Annual Rent Matrix is missing.
- Annual Rent Matrix scenario separation and labeling are not fully clear.
- Color-coding and editable cell highlighting are not verifiable from content.
  > 💡 Add a clearly labeled Notes section and verify visual formatting meets requirements.

### ❌ `55ddb773…` — score 3/10
- Did not include actual violation types and questions from the attached Violations Questions PDF.
- Provided placeholder sections instead of required detailed content.
- Final questionnaire PDF was not produced, only a DOCX file.
  > 💡 Extract and list all violation types and qualifying questions from the attached PDF and deliver a finalized PDF form.

### ❌ `1e5a1d7f…` — score 3/10
- The .docx file lacks the required table format with four specified columns.
- No actual weekly schedule content is provided, only a brief description.
- Tasks are not mapped to times of day or weeks of the month.
  > 💡 Create a detailed table in the .docx with all required columns and populated weekly tasks based on PM duties.

### ✅ `0419f1c3…` — score 9/10
- Text response is high-level and does not summarize specific findings.
  > 💡 Include a brief executive summary highlighting key metrics and training recommendations.

### ✅ `ed2bc14c…` — score 8/10
- Exit survey analysis does not explicitly show categorization across all five required reasons.
- Renewal emails are described conceptually rather than including short draft message samples.
  > 💡 Add a brief five-category summary table and sample email language to strengthen completeness.

### ✅ `46bc7238…` — score 7/10
- Next Steps section is not clearly included in the PDF text content.
- One-page flyer template lacks detailed contact information fields.
- Cold outreach scripts are brief and not deeply tailored by QSR category.
  > 💡 Add a clear Next Steps page and expand flyer and scripts for stronger usability.

### ✅ `fd3ad420…` — score 8/10
- Commission splits lack specific percentage examples.
- PDF shows encoding artifacts in bullet points.
  > 💡 Add sample split percentages and correct bullet formatting for polish.

### ❌ `0818571f…` — score 4/10
- Properties are illustrative placeholders, not sourced active listings from Crexi or LoopNet.
- Photos and maps are placeholders rather than real property-specific materials.
- No evidence listings were active from June 2025 to present.
  > 💡 Source real, currently active Crexi or LoopNet listings and replace all placeholder data and images.

### ✅ `5ad0c554…` — score 6/10
- Does not explicitly reference or identify items from the 132 Things REALTORS Do for Buyers.
- Double-sided brochure layout is not demonstrated or specified in the Word file.
- Use of visuals is minimal and not clearly integrated into the brochure layout.
  > 💡 Explicitly map brochure sections to numbered items from the 132 Things document and format as a true double-sided layout.

### ❌ `11593a50…` — score 4/10
- Properties are in Massabama NY 11009, not Massapequa Park NY 11762.
- Home tour PDF is four pages instead of the required two pages.
- Listing photos appear to be placeholders, not actual property photos.
  > 💡 Rebuild the PDFs using verified MLSLI listings in Massapequa Park with correct photos and page limits.

### ✅ `94925f49…` — score 7/10
- No explicit citations or links to reputable school data sources are included.
- Home listings appear illustrative rather than verifiable current market listings.
- Community reviews and neighboring schools are minimally addressed or absent.
  > 💡 Add cited sources and real-time listing references to strengthen credibility and buyer confidence.

### ✅ `90f37ff3…` — score 6/10
- Comparable listings lack full addresses and specific listing dates.
- Market data appears illustrative without cited sources or verification.
- Requirement for real data pulls from public platforms not met.
  > 💡 Include verifiable comparables with full addresses, dates, and cited sources from LoopNet or Crexi.

### ✅ `d3d255b2…` — score 8/10
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing key findings or recommendations.
  > 💡 Include a brief executive summary of conclusions and counteroffer in the text response.

### ✅ `403b9234…` — score 8/10
- Text response contains a grammatical error: 'an 9-slide.'

### ✅ `1bff4551…` — score 6/10
- No evidence songs are represented in the Institute’s collection as requested.
- One selection centers a non-Black original artist, weakening the program focus.
- Original song includes a non-functional YouTube link.
  > 💡 Verify collection holdings, replace or justify marginal selections, and provide a valid link for the original song.

### ✅ `650adcb1…` — score 6/10
- Dustin Herman’s requested time off range is not fully represented.
- Days with fewer than two interns working are not explicitly identified.
- December sheet includes an extra blank column reducing clarity.
  > 💡 Add a summary tab listing understaffed dates and correct all requested time-off entries.

### ✅ `01d7e53e…` — score 6/10
- Text response summarizes intent instead of presenting agreement content.
- Use of Summer Fun facilities document appears unrelated to RecFit program.
- Unable to verify required contacts, indemnification, and term details from preview.
  > 💡 Include the full agreement text and ensure all specified program and legal requirements are explicitly documented.

### ✅ `0ec25916…` — score 8/10
- Bullet points display encoding artifacts instead of standard symbols.
- Two-column table layout is not clearly visually separated.
- Receiving clinician line placement appears slightly unclear.
  > 💡 Replace encoding artifacts and strengthen table borders for clearer visual structure.

### ✅ `116e791e…` — score 6/10
- Required one-page PDF was not produced; only a DOCX file was delivered.
- Text response claims a PDF deliverable that does not exist.
- File format does not meet specified submission requirements.
  > 💡 Convert the care plan to a single-page professionally formatted PDF and resubmit.

### ✅ `dd724c67…` — score 5/10
- Facility list is incomplete and does not include all Long Island hospitals and rehabilitation facilities.
- TFU timeframes and conditions are not fully aligned with ACO REACH PY 2025 specifications.
- CMS reference lacks citation and comprehensive condition coverage.
  > 💡 Expand the facility list comprehensively and update TFU details directly from the ACO REACH PY 2025 methodology.

### ❌ `7151c60a…` — score 3/10
- Fax cover sheet lacks required sender, recipient, checkbox options, and confidentiality statement.
- Pre-screening checklist missing table, required patient elements, page numbers, and staff-only fields.
- Checklist and fax sheet do not clearly include or display the company logo as specified.
  > 💡 Revise both Word documents to fully include all specified fields, tables, logos, and regulatory elements.

### ❌ `90edba97…` — score 3/10
- Did not enter monthly lab values into tracker; used placeholder text.
- Failed to apply standing order protocols to document medication changes.
- Assumed lab data unavailable despite provided Patient Lab Reports.
  > 💡 Populate tracker with actual lab data and document protocol-driven monthly treatment changes.

### ✅ `91060ff0…` — score 6/10
- Poster lacks required visuals such as tables, icons, or product comparisons.
- References are vague and not cited specifically as requested.
- Content appears text-heavy and not visually engaging for a poster format.
  > 💡 Add clear visuals, specific citations, and layout elements to enhance engagement and credibility.

### ❌ `8384083a…` — score 2/10
- Missing required medication-specific details like NDCs, strengths, package sizes, and days’ supply.
- No calculations or tables provided for listed high-cost medications.
- PDF file not produced; content is incomplete and only a brief DOCX exists.
  > 💡 Create a complete 1–2 page PDF with a table covering all specified medications and required fields.

### ✅ `045aba2e…` — score 8/10
- Checklists lack explicit citations to specific California law or regulation sections.
- No version date or review owner identified on checklist pages.
  > 💡 Add regulation citations and a version/date footer to strengthen audit defensibility.

### ❌ `f2986c1f…` — score 3/10
- Medications were not identified using Drugs.com as required.
- MedlinePlus counseling links are missing and marked NA.
- Spreadsheet contains placeholder content without image-based identification.
  > 💡 Identify each medication from the image using Drugs.com and populate all fields with verified details and links.

### ✅ `ffed32d8…` — score 5/10
- Comparative table omits required drug cost and vial cost breakdowns.
- Analysis does not show reimbursement calculations per fill and annually.
- Coverage day mismatch not discussed or justified in assumptions.
  > 💡 Add a detailed per-drug cost, vial, and reimbursement breakdown table with clear assumptions.

### ✅ `788d2bc6…` — score 6/10
- Deck lacks TikTok Shop, influencer marketing, and creator outreach slides.
- Creative services like A+ Content and Brand Story are missing.
- Review generation and analytics dashboard services are not fully presented.
  > 💡 Add dedicated slides covering TikTok, creative optimization, reviews, and analytics to fully match requirements.

### ✅ `74ed1dc7…` — score 9/10
- Text response includes an unnecessary confidence marker not requested in the task.
  > 💡 Remove extraneous confidence tags to keep the response strictly professional.

### ✅ `69a8ef86…` — score 8/10
- Included unrequested Return Issues.docx file.
- Text response includes nonstandard CONFIDENCE tag.
  > 💡 Remove extraneous files and metadata to align strictly with deliverable requirements.

### ✅ `d7cfae6f…` — score 6/10
- Recap timeframe references Q1 2023 instead of planning-relevant Q1 2024.
- Text response summarizes intent but does not confirm calculations or results.
- No explicit confirmation that comments column exists and is blank.
  > 💡 Clarify timelines and explicitly validate that the recap meets each numeric requirement.

### ❌ `19403010…` — score 4/10
- Section 1 TY and LY sales totals appear double-counted versus source data totals.
- Section 2 SKU classification criteria cannot be validated from provided recap preview.
- Sections 3–5 calculations and rankings are not verifiable from the summary preview.
  > 💡 Recheck aggregations against source totals and clearly validate discontinued logic and function rankings.

### ❌ `105f8ad0…` — score 4/10
- No online competitor MSRP research conducted as required; proxies were used instead.
- EDP and EDT recommendations lack consistent premium relationship across concentrations.
- Pricing rationales are generic and do not explicitly address COGS, concentration, and benchmarks.
  > 💡 Conduct required online MSRP research and revise model to enforce clear concentration-based premiums with detailed rationales.

### ❌ `b57efde3…` — score 4/10
- Did not review or systematically use the official Aqua Nor 2025 exhibitor list.
- Prospecting list is extremely incomplete and includes placeholder/unvalidated entries.
- Spreadsheet lacks contact details needed to find and connect with leads.
  > 💡 Fully review the official exhibitor list and deliver a comprehensive, validated Excel file with real contacts.

### ❌ `15d37511…` — score 3/10
- Spreadsheet lacks numeric pricing and costs despite reference email.
- Margins, percentages, and totals are missing and uncalculated.
- Tiered pricing and discounts are not applied.
  > 💡 Populate all pricing from the email and calculate margins, discounts, and Year 1 totals.

### ❌ `bb863dd9…` — score 4/10
- Quotation lacks detailed line items per IEHK module with quantities and pricing.
- Shelf life and lead time per module are not clearly listed in the quotation.
- WHO reference link is generic and not the specific IEHK documentation.
  > 💡 Add a detailed itemized table per module including quantity, price, shelf life, lead time, and a specific WHO IEHK link.

### ✅ `6a900a40…` — score 5/10
- Revised quotation shows malformed headers and columns, indicating structural Excel errors.
- Cannot verify red-font general remark about freight validity and reconfirmation.
- Item remarks and transport option placement below Total EXW are not clearly evidenced.
  > 💡 Review and correct the revised Excel layout, formatting, and required remarks before submission.

### ✅ `9efbcd35…` — score 5/10
- No specific MSCI index performance data or figures are included.
- Lacks explicit references or citations to MSCI, WSJ, FT, or research sources.
- Analysis remains high-level and generic, limiting client credibility.
  > 💡 Add concrete MSCI return data and clearly cite reputable news and research sources.

### ❌ `1d4672c8…` — score 4/10
- Used simulated returns instead of extracting MSCI data as required.
- PDF analysis was not delivered; only a DOCX file was provided.
- Excel workbook lacks a correlation matrix tab.
  > 💡 Replace simulated data with MSCI-sourced returns, add a correlation sheet, and export the analysis as PDF.

### ❌ `4de6a529…` — score 3/10
- PDF lacks UW/N/OW views, change indicators, conviction levels, and justifications.
- Asset class tables are placeholders without updated Q1 2025 Stanton views.
- Deliverable does not reflect minimal quarter-over-quarter review or changes.
  > 💡 Populate tables with explicit Q1 2025 views, changes, conviction levels, and one-sentence rationales for each line item.

### ❌ `4c4dc603…` — score 3/10
- No one-page investor-ready Product Summary PDF was produced.
- Output relied on creating files but provided only a generic promise text response.
- Wrong source file used and requirements for format and content not evidenced.
  > 💡 Produce a one-page Product Summary PDF explicitly covering all required sections using the provided IM.

### ✅ `bb499d9c…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing actual document contents.
- No evidence the Word document stays within the 25-page limit.
- Compliance and regulatory specifics are not explicitly confirmed in the response.
  > 💡 Include a concise section-by-section summary and confirm page count and compliance coverage.

### ✅ `5349dd7b…` — score 7/10
- Historical rate increases are estimated without cited research sources.
- Business rate eligibility and standard delivery speeds are not clearly validated.
- Carrier flat rate definitions may not align with official offerings.
  > 💡 Validate all rates and increases with cited carrier sources and confirm business flat rate eligibility.

### ✅ `a4a9195c…` — score 8/10
- Document lacks revision history and approval/signature section.
  > 💡 Add revision control and approval fields to support formal document governance.

### ✅ `552b7dd0…` — score 6/10
- Text response provides no actual analysis, metrics, or findings.
- PowerPoint content cannot be verified against required statistics and summary slide.
- Unrequested CONFIDENCE tag included in the response.
  > 💡 Include concrete results and ensure the presentation explicitly covers all required metrics and conclusions.

### ❌ `11dcc268…` — score 4/10
- Moved To line locations are blank and not populated from Inv on line.
- Partial receipt rule for item P11-P09457-01 is not reflected.
- Location Report formatting and headers remain largely unfilled.
  > 💡 Populate all required columns using Inv on line locations and explicitly handle the partial receipt case.

### ✅ `76418a2c…` — score 6/10
- Manifest contains placeholder headers and missing required fields like date and tracking numbers.
- Savings calculation shows floating-point precision errors.
- Spreadsheet formatting does not match the provided blank manifest structure.
  > 💡 Fully populate required fields, correct formatting to match the blank manifest, and round calculated values appropriately.

### ❌ `0e386e32…` — score 4/10
- ZIP archive size is far too small for a complete frontend and smart contract scaffold.
- No verifiable evidence of actual code content beyond high-level description.
- Privacy logic and zkSNARK implementation are not demonstrably included.
  > 💡 Provide a fully populated codebase with inspectable source files and documented build instructions.

### ❌ `7de33b48…` — score 3/10
- Zip contents cannot be verified from provided preview.
- Response describes deliverable but includes no actual code details.
- Required file list is incomplete and truncated.
  > 💡 Include verifiable code contents and a complete file list with confirmed implementations.

### ❌ `4122f866…` — score 4/10
- Terraform configuration files are not visible or verifiable in the provided preview.
- Lambda exports.js implementation cannot be inspected to confirm required logic.
- SES, API Gateway, and IAM resources are not explicitly demonstrated.
  > 💡 Include and expose all Terraform files and Lambda source code contents for full verification.

### ❌ `2c249e0f…` — score 3/10
- Missing required OpenAPI 3.0 YAML specification file.
- Text response claims files not actually produced.
- data_flow.txt lacks detailed multistage pipeline and API interactions.
  > 💡 Provide a complete OpenAPI 3.0 YAML file and expand data_flow.txt with full pipeline details.

## Failure Analysis

Across the 220-task run, the dominant failure modes were not random; they clustered into three repeatable categories: environment/tooling failures, brittle spreadsheet/data parsing, and deliverable substitution. The model was strongest on bounded text-heavy policy, memo, and compliance work where the artifact could be authored directly without external tooling, such as Government compliance and policy tasks a328feea-47db-4856-b4be-2bdc63dd88fb, 7bbfcfe9-132d-4194-82bb-d6f29d001b01, 2696757c-1f8a-4959-8f0d-f5597b9e70fc, and a95a5829-34bb-40f3-993b-558aed6dcdef. By contrast, the weakest sectors on reliability and/or quality were Finance and Insurance, Wholesale Trade, Retail Trade, and media-heavy Information roles, which combined lower completion with more format and execution defects. This explains why raw completion remained high overall while Self-QA stayed moderate: many tasks crossed the finish line, but often with thin evidence, wrong file types, or placeholder content.

A large share of the 20 hard failures came from missing external conversion tools, especially LibreOffice/Soffice. That pattern appears in 85d95ce5-b20c-41e2-834e-e788ce9622b6, 211d0093-2c64-4bd0-828c-0201f18924e7, 3940b7e7-ec4f-4cea-8097-3ab4cfdcaaa6, 6241e678-4ba3-4831-b3c7-78412697febc, 6074bba3-7e3a-4b1c-b8c6-a15bb6695c3b, a69be28f-9a84-47c9-992e-b90446cdca9d, and ab81b076-e5d8-473a-9bdb-7ea7c38f6ebc. Retries did not help because the fault was deterministic and environmental. Even when these tasks did not crash, the same underlying weakness showed up as wrong-format successes: PPTX or DOCX submitted where PDF was required in 61717508-4df7-41be-bf97-318dfb2475c0, e21cd746-404d-4602-b9d2-01d2812c5b87, 9e8607e7-a38a-491f-ace1-e5ea7dc477cb, a1963a68-1bea-4bb1-b7e0-145c92a57449, 8a7b6fca-60cc-4ae3-b649-971753cbf8b9, and 116e791e-890c-42b1-ba90-1db02e8bfd45. This is a pipeline problem more than a reasoning problem.

The second major failure cluster was brittle schema handling in spreadsheets and semi-structured files. Multiple hard errors came from assuming exact header names or fixed row positions: 87da214f-fd92-4c58-9854-f4d0d10adce0 failed on missing 'Amount Reimbursed', 5f6c57dd-feb6-4e70-b152-4969d92d1608 on missing 'Branch', b39a5aa7-cd1b-47ad-b249-90afd22f8f21 on an undetected roster header, e996036e-8287-4e7f-8d0a-90a57cb53c45 on trying to parse 'Q1' as float, d4525420-a427-4ef2-b4e9-2dcc2d31b3b6 on missing 'Employee Name', a0552909-bc66-4a3a-8970-ee0d17b49718 on a missing 'Request Sent Date', f841ddcf-2a28-4f6d-bac3-61b607219d3e on missing 'Ship Start', 7ed932dd-244f-4d61-bf02-1bc3bab1af14 on missing 'In Stock (cases)', and a73fbc98-90d4-4134-a54f-2b1d0c838791 on NaN-to-int conversion. The same pattern also degraded many 'successful' spreadsheet tasks: wrong formulas or unpopulated fields in 24d1e93f-9018-45d4-b522-ad89dfd78079, b7a5912e-0e63-41f5-8c22-9cdb8f46ab01, 3f821c2d-ab97-46ec-a0fb-b8f73c2682bc, 327fbc21-7d26-4964-bf7c-f4f41e55c54d, 11dcc268-cb07-4d3a-a184-c6d7a19349bc, and 76418a2c-a3c0-4894-b89d-2493369135d9. This was especially concentrated in Finance, Wholesale, Retail, and operations-heavy Manufacturing tasks.

The third pattern was deliverable substitution on complex artifact tasks: instead of producing the requested media, CAD, or code, the system often produced a plan, placeholder, or generic package. Information-sector audio/video work is the clearest case: 38889c3b-e3d4-49c8-816a-3cc8e5313aba delivered silent stems, ff85ee58-bc9f-4aa2-806d-87edeabb1b81 delivered a report instead of WAV, e222075d-5d62-4757-ae3c-e34b0846583b, c94452e4-39cd-4846-b73a-ab75933d1ad7, 75401f7c-396d-406d-b08e-938874ad1045, and a941b6d8-4289-4500-b45a-f8e4fc94a724 all substituted planning documents for actual video/composite outputs. Similar patterns appeared in Mechanical Engineering and Software Developer tasks such as 5e2b6aab-f9fb-4dd6-a1a5-874ef1743909, 8077e700-2b31-402d-bd09-df4d33c39653, 0e386e32-df20-4d1f-b536-7159bc409ad5, 7de33b48-5163-4f50-b5f3-8deea8185e57, and 2c249e0f-4a8c-4f8e-b4f4-6508ba29b34f, where archives or docs were not substantively verifiable. A related grounding problem affected research/listing tasks that needed real external facts: placeholders or uncited illustrative data showed up in a10ec48c-168e-476c-8fe3-23b2a5f616ac, 0818571f-5ff7-4d39-9d2c-ced5ae44299e, 11593a50-734d-4449-b5b4-f8986a133fd8, 02aa1805-c658-4069-8a6a-02dec146063a, 6d2c8e55-fe20-45c6-bdaf-93e676868503, and 8079e27d-b6f3-4f75-a9b5-db27903c798d. Retries sometimes rescued text/form tasks, but they often only converted hard failures into low-confidence completions without fixing the underlying mismatch, as seen in c44e9b62-7cd8-4f72-8ad9-f8fbddb94083, 6dcae3f5-bf1c-48e0-8b4b-23e6486a934c, and 0353ee0c-18b5-4ad3-88e8-e001d223e1d7. Longer latency also did not buy better quality; several of the slowest jobs still had poor QA, including 46fc494e-a24f-45ce-b099-851d5c181fd4, a1963a68-1bea-4bb1-b7e0-145c92a57449, and 6974adea-8326-43fa-8187-2724b15d9546.

## Recommendations

First, harden the execution environment and file-conversion layer before changing prompts. The benchmark shows repeated deterministic failures from absent office conversion binaries, so the system should run a preflight capability check at task start and select a supported rendering path. If LibreOffice/Soffice is unavailable, the agent should either use a native Python export path or switch to a document template that can be directly emitted in the requested format instead of crashing, as would have prevented 85d95ce5-b20c-41e2-834e-e788ce9622b6, 211d0093-2c64-4bd0-828c-0201f18924e7, 3940b7e7-ec4f-4cea-8097-3ab4cfdcaaa6, 6241e678-4ba3-4831-b3c7-78412697febc, and 6074bba3-7e3a-4b1c-b8c6-a15bb6695c3b. Add a final file-type validator that blocks submission when the extension or MIME type does not match the task requirement; this would catch many 'successful' but wrong-format outputs such as 61717508-4df7-41be-bf97-318dfb2475c0, e21cd746-404d-4602-b9d2-01d2812c5b87, 9e8607e7-a38a-491f-ace1-e5ea7dc477cb, a1963a68-1bea-4bb1-b7e0-145c92a57449, and 116e791e-890c-42b1-ba90-1db02e8bfd45.

Second, replace brittle schema assumptions with a defensive ingestion layer. The parser should detect header rows dynamically, normalize column names, handle multi-row headers, and use fuzzy matching plus sheet introspection before any downstream logic executes. A lightweight profiling step would have prevented the KeyError and ValueError chain in 87da214f-fd92-4c58-9854-f4d0d10adce0, 5f6c57dd-feb6-4e70-b152-4969d92d1608, b39a5aa7-cd1b-47ad-b249-90afd22f8f21, e996036e-8287-4e7f-8d0a-90a57cb53c45, d4525420-a427-4ef2-b4e9-2dcc2d31b3b6, a0552909-bc66-4a3a-8970-ee0d17b49718, f841ddcf-2a28-4f6d-bac3-61b607219d3e, and 7ed932dd-244f-4d61-bf02-1bc3bab1af14. Apply the same principle after workbook generation: run a structured validator that checks populated required columns, formula presence, and reconciliation totals before submission. That would materially improve spreadsheet quality on tasks like 24d1e93f-9018-45d4-b522-ad89dfd78079, b7a5912e-0e63-41f5-8c22-9cdb8f46ab01, 3f821c2d-ab97-46ec-a0fb-b8f73c2682bc, 327fbc21-7d26-4964-bf7c-f4f41e55c54d, and 11dcc268-cb07-4d3a-a184-c6d7a19349bc.

Third, tighten prompt and policy behavior around artifact fidelity. Many low-QA outputs were not wrong because the reasoning was bad; they were wrong because the system substituted summaries, plans, or placeholders for the requested artifact. The agent prompt should explicitly require: deliver the final artifact, not a plan; include a short evidence summary of what was actually produced; and fail an internal checklist if any requested core element is missing. For media, CAD, and code-archive tasks, use capability-aware routing so the model only finalizes after a render/build/export step has succeeded and the output is inspectable. That directly targets the failure family seen in 38889c3b-e3d4-49c8-816a-3cc8e5313aba, ff85ee58-bc9f-4aa2-806d-87edeabb1b81, e222075d-5d62-4757-ae3c-e34b0846583b, c94452e4-39cd-4846-b73a-ab75933d1ad7, 75401f7c-396d-406d-b08e-938874ad1045, a941b6d8-4289-4500-b45a-f8e4fc94a724, 5e2b6aab-f9fb-4dd6-a1a5-874ef1743909, and 0e386e32-df20-4d1f-b536-7159bc409ad5. Also strip internal metadata tokens before execution and submission; the CONFIDENCE artifacts that caused 45c6237b-f9c9-4526-9a8d-6a5c404624ec and feb5eefc-39f1-4451-9ef9-bffe011b71dd, and polluted many successful responses, should never reach runtime.

Fourth, make retries conditional and use QA thresholds as routing signals rather than just reporting metrics. In this run, retries helped on some bounded tasks but were largely wasted on deterministic failures and structural mismatches. Missing-binary, missing-column, syntax, and placeholder-content classes should trigger a different repair strategy instead of a blind rerun; that would reduce wasted retries on 85d95ce5-b20c-41e2-834e-e788ce9622b6, e996036e-8287-4e7f-8d0a-90a57cb53c45, a0552909-bc66-4a3a-8970-ee0d17b49718, 6241e678-4ba3-4831-b3c7-78412697febc, and 854f3814-681c-4950-91ac-55b0db0e3781. Raise automatic second-pass scrutiny for sectors that mixed low completion with weak confidence, especially Finance and Insurance, Wholesale Trade, Retail Trade, and media-heavy Information. A simple rule such as re-open any task with QA below 6 when the output lacks citations, uses placeholder text, or submits the wrong format would have caught many of the superficially 'successful' but weak outputs, including 8079e27d-b6f3-4f75-a9b5-db27903c798d, a10ec48c-168e-476c-8fe3-23b2a5f616ac, 02aa1805-c658-4069-8a6a-02dec146063a, 6d2c8e55-fe20-45c6-bdaf-93e676868503, and 55ddb773-23a4-454c-8704-d432fe1b99d9. Since higher latency did not reliably improve quality, early validation plus targeted repair is likely to outperform longer unconstrained runs.

## Deliverable Files

- `83d10b06…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `7b08cd4d…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `7d7fc9a7…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 7 file(s)
- `43dc9778…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 16 file(s)
- `ee09d943…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 18 file(s)
- `f84ea6ac…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a328feea…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `27e8912c…` (Government): 5 file(s)
- `17111c03…` (Government): 3 file(s)
- `c44e9b62…` (Government): 6 file(s)
- `99ac6944…` (Information): 4 file(s)
- `f9a1c16c…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `38889c3b…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `ff85ee58…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `1b1ade2d…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `93b336f3…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `15ddd28d…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `24d1e93f…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `05389f78…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `575f8679…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a74ead3b…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `bbe0a93b…` (Government): 3 file(s)
- `76d10872…` (Government): 5 file(s)
- `36d567ba…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `7bbfcfe9…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `2696757c…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `dfb4e0cd…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `4c18ebae…` (Government): 3 file(s)
- `cebf301e…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `c2e8f271…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `2ea2e5b5…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 6 file(s)
- `c357f0e2…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `a45bc83b…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 5 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): 7 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): 2 file(s)
- `aa071045…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `476db143…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 4 file(s)
- `61f546a8…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 4 file(s)
- `f3351922…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `61717508…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `0ed38524…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `d025a41c…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `401a07f1…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `afe56d05…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `9a8c8e28…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `3a4c347c…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `ec2fccc9…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `8c8fc328…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `e222075d…` (Information): 6 file(s)
- `c94452e4…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `75401f7c…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `a941b6d8…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `8079e27d…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `e21cd746…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `9e8607e7…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `c7d83f01…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `46b34f78…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `a1963a68…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `b78fd844…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `4520f882…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `ec591973…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `62f04c2f…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `3f821c2d…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `327fbc21…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `6dcae3f5…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `1aecc095…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 4 file(s)
- `0353ee0c…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `40a8c4b1…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 4 file(s)
- `4d1a8410…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 11 file(s)
- `8c823e32…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `eb54f575…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `11e1b169…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a95a5829…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `22c0809b…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `bf68f2ad…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `efca245f…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `9e39df84…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `68d8d901…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `1752cb53…` (Manufacturing): 6 file(s)
- `bd72994f…` (Retail Trade): 2 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): 2 file(s)
- `8a7b6fca…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `40a99a31…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `b9665ca1…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `c6269101…` (Manufacturing): 6 file(s)
- `be830ca0…` (Manufacturing): 8 file(s)
- `cd9efc18…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `a97369c7…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `3f625cb2…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `aad21e4c…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `8314d1b1…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `5e2b6aab…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `46fc494e…` (Manufacturing): 6 file(s)
- `8077e700…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `5a2d70da…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `74d6e8b0…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `81db15ff…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `61b0946a…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `61e7b9c6…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `c9bf9801…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 4 file(s)
- `f1be6436…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 5 file(s)
- `41f6ef59…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `6d2c8e55…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 13 file(s)
- `4b98ccce…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 7 file(s)
- `60221cd0…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `ef8719da…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `3baa0009…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `5d0feb24…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `6974adea…` (Information): 8 file(s)
- `1a78e076…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `1b9ec237…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `0112fc9b…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `772e7524…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `e6429658…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 4 file(s)
- `b5d2e6f1…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `47ef842d…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `1137e2bb…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `c3525d4d…` (Wholesale Trade): 5 file(s)
- `9a0d8d36…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `664a42e5…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `3600de06…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `c657103b…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `ae0c1093…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `f9f82549…` (Retail Trade): 8 file(s)
- `57b2cdf2…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `84322284…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `a46d5cd2…` (Retail Trade): 5 file(s)
- `e14e32ba…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `b1a79ce1…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `e4f664ea…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `a079d38f…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `02aa1805…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `fd6129bd…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 3 file(s)
- `ce864f41…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 5 file(s)
- `58ac1cc5…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 7 file(s)
- `3c19c6d1…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 5 file(s)
- `a99d85fc…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `55ddb773…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `1e5a1d7f…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `0419f1c3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `ed2bc14c…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `46bc7238…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 7 file(s)
- `2d06bc0a…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `fd3ad420…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `0818571f…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 13 file(s)
- `5ad0c554…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `11593a50…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 5 file(s)
- `94925f49…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 5 file(s)
- `90f37ff3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `d3d255b2…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `403b9234…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `1bff4551…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `650adcb1…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `01d7e53e…` (Government): 4 file(s)
- `0ec25916…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `116e791e…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `dd724c67…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `7151c60a…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 5 file(s)
- `90edba97…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 6 file(s)
- `91060ff0…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `8384083a…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `045aba2e…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `f2986c1f…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `ffed32d8…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `b3573f20…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `788d2bc6…` (Wholesale Trade): 5 file(s)
- `74ed1dc7…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `69a8ef86…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `d7cfae6f…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `19403010…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `105f8ad0…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `b57efde3…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `15d37511…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `bb863dd9…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `fe0d3941…` (Wholesale Trade): 4 file(s)
- `6a900a40…` (Wholesale Trade): 6 file(s)
- `9efbcd35…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `1d4672c8…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `4de6a529…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `4c4dc603…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `bb499d9c…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `5349dd7b…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `a4a9195c…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `552b7dd0…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `11dcc268…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `76418a2c…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `0e386e32…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `7de33b48…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `4122f866…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `2c249e0f…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
