# Experiment Report: GPT-5.2 Reasoning NULL — Full Benchmark (Ablation 4/4)

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| **Experiment ID** | `exp020_GPT52_reasoning_null` |
| **Condition** | GPT-5.2 reasoning=null (omitted) + gpt-audio-1.5 preprocessor |
| **Model** | gpt-5.2-chat |
| **Execution Mode** | subprocess |
| **Date** | 2026-04-06 |
| **Duration** | 103m 21s |
| **Generated At** | 2026-04-06T10:45:44.928201+00:00 |
| 🤗 HF Dataset | [exp020_GPT52_reasoning_null](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp020_GPT52_reasoning_null) |
| 📊 Self-Report | [self_report.json](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp020_GPT52_reasoning_null/blob/main/self_report.json) |
| 📊 Grading | ⏳ Awaiting (`scores.json`) |

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

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

This run evaluated GPT-5.2-chat under the ablation condition where reasoning was omitted and a gpt-audio-1.5 preprocessor was used, executed in subprocess mode. Across 220 total tasks, 211 completed successfully for a 95.9% task completion rate, with 9 errors and 30 retried tasks. Operationally, that indicates broad deliverable file generation coverage with some nontrivial recovery activity during execution.

On self-assessed confidence, the run averaged 6.09/10 in LLM-evaluated quality, with observed scores ranging from 2 to 9. That profile suggests outputs were usually serviceable but not consistently high-confidence, and the absence of top-end scores indicates limited evidence of uniformly strong final-answer quality. The quality signal is therefore better characterized as moderate and uneven than strong.

Latency averaged 19,505 ms per task. Completion remained high despite that runtime, but the combination of moderate latency, 30 retries, and middling self-QA suggests the system was more reliable at producing a deliverable than at producing consistently high-confidence content. In other words, basic task completion was strong, while perceived answer quality was more variable.

The clearest sector-level highlights were Retail Trade and Government on the positive side, and Wholesale Trade on the negative side. Retail achieved 20/20 success with the highest average self-assessed confidence at 7.1/10 and the lowest average latency among listed sectors. Government also performed well at 24/25 success with 7.0/10 average QA. Wholesale Trade was the weakest execution area at 22/25 success and 5.7/10 average QA, accounting for the largest sector-level drop in completion.

## Key Metrics

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Tasks | 220 |
| Success | 211 (95.9%) |
| Errors | 9 |
| Retried Tasks | 30 |
| Avg QA Score | 6.09/10 |
| Min QA Score | 2/10 |
| Max QA Score | 9/10 |
| Avg Latency | 19,505ms |
| Max Latency | 38,289ms |
| Total LLM Time | 4291s |

## File Generation

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Tasks requiring files | 185 |
| Successfully generated | 177 (95.7%) |
| Failed → dummy created | 8 |

### Resume Rounds

| Round | Attempted | Recovered | Still Failed |
|-------|-----------|-----------|--------------|
| 1 | 18 | 18 | 0 |
| 2 | 12 | 3 | 9 |

## Quality Analysis

The QA distribution indicates moderate LLM-evaluated quality overall rather than high-confidence performance. An average of 6.09/10, with a minimum of 2 and maximum of 9, implies that most completed outputs were plausible enough to pass task execution but often lacked the model's own strongest confidence. From a deliverable-generation perspective, this points to generally successful file/output creation with variable content robustness.

Sector-level differences were meaningful. Retail Trade led on self-assessed confidence at 7.1/10 and also had perfect completion, making it the cleanest execution profile in the summary. Government was similarly strong at 7.0/10 with 24/25 success. Real Estate and Rental and Leasing was slightly above the overall average at 6.1/10, while Finance and Insurance sat near the mean at 6.0/10. Lower-confidence sectors included Health Care and Social Assistance at 5.6/10, Manufacturing at 5.7/10, Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services at 5.8/10, and Wholesale Trade at 5.7/10.

Latency does not show a positive relationship with self-assessed quality in this run. Information had the highest average latency at 22,411 ms but only 5.9/10 average QA, while Retail achieved the best QA at the lowest listed latency of 17,567 ms. Government also combined above-average QA with below-average latency at 18,424 ms. Health Care and Manufacturing were both slower than average and still remained below or near the lower end of the QA range. The pattern suggests that longer runtime was not translating into better LLM-evaluated quality under this condition.

Occupation-specific observations are limited because the available summary is aggregated by sector rather than by individual occupation. The defensible conclusion is that variation is currently better explained at the sector level than at the occupation level. For file-generation quality, the high completion rate indicates deliverables were usually produced successfully, but the middling QA averages and sector spread indicate that output quality and confidence were less stable than raw completion alone would suggest.

## Sector Breakdown

| Sector | Tasks | Success | Success% | Avg QA | Avg Latency |
|--------|-------|---------|----------|--------|-------------|
| Finance and Insurance | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 6.0/10 | 19,130ms |
| Government | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 6.96/10 | 18,424ms |
| Health Care and Social Assistance | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 5.62/10 | 20,281ms |
| Information | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 5.92/10 | 22,411ms |
| Manufacturing | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 5.71/10 | 20,526ms |
| Professional, Scientific, and Technical  | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 5.79/10 | 19,591ms |
| Real Estate and Rental and Leasing | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 6.12/10 | 19,428ms |
| Retail Trade | 20 | 20 | 100.0% | 7.1/10 | 17,567ms |
| Wholesale Trade | 25 | 22 | 88.0% | 5.73/10 | 17,804ms |

## Task Results

| # | Task ID | Sector | Occupation | Status | Retry | Files | QA Score | Latency |
|---|---------|--------|------------|--------|-------|-------|----------|---------|
| 1 | `83d10b06…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 20365ms |
| 2 | `7b08cd4d…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 2/10 | 12764ms |
| 3 | `7d7fc9a7…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 19524ms |
| 4 | `43dc9778…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 19502ms |
| 5 | `ee09d943…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 4/10 | 15661ms |
| 6 | `f84ea6ac…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 1 | 2/10 | 21846ms |
| 7 | `a328feea…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 11601ms |
| 8 | `27e8912c…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 6 | 6/10 | 19194ms |
| 9 | `17111c03…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 17272ms |
| 10 | `c44e9b62…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 3/10 | 17001ms |
| 11 | `99ac6944…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 26247ms |
| 12 | `f9a1c16c…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 22470ms |
| 13 | `38889c3b…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | Yes | 6 | 6/10 | 30436ms |
| 14 | `ff85ee58…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 17801ms |
| 15 | `4b894ae3…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 7/10 | 15071ms |
| 16 | `1b1ade2d…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 25777ms |
| 17 | `93b336f3…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 17224ms |
| 18 | `15ddd28d…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 16474ms |
| 19 | `24d1e93f…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 18360ms |
| 20 | `05389f78…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 31666ms |
| 21 | `575f8679…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 18286ms |
| 22 | `a74ead3b…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 17496ms |
| 23 | `bbe0a93b…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 6 | 6/10 | 24685ms |
| 24 | `85d95ce5…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 28222ms |
| 25 | `76d10872…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 16314ms |
| 26 | `36d567ba…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 18584ms |
| 27 | `7bbfcfe9…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 10868ms |
| 28 | `2696757c…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 17217ms |
| 29 | `dfb4e0cd…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 12892ms |
| 30 | `4c18ebae…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 25894ms |
| 31 | `cebf301e…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 21473ms |
| 32 | `c2e8f271…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 21714ms |
| 33 | `2ea2e5b5…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 17087ms |
| 34 | `c357f0e2…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 15638ms |
| 35 | `a45bc83b…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 23541ms |
| 36 | `a10ec48c…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 1 | 2/10 | 15214ms |
| 37 | `fccaa4a1…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 21785ms |
| 38 | `f5d428fd…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 8 | 7/10 | 20950ms |
| 39 | `2fa8e956…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 21679ms |
| 40 | `0e4fe8cd…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 20070ms |
| 41 | `a0ef404e…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 21649ms |
| 42 | `b7a5912e…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 14974ms |
| 43 | `aa071045…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 14288ms |
| 44 | `476db143…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 11217ms |
| 45 | `61f546a8…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 19841ms |
| 46 | `f3351922…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 15891ms |
| 47 | `61717508…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 23619ms |
| 48 | `0ed38524…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 14483ms |
| 49 | `87da214f…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 16965ms |
| 50 | `d025a41c…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 13765ms |
| 51 | `401a07f1…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 21149ms |
| 52 | `afe56d05…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 33831ms |
| 53 | `9a8c8e28…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 6 | 8/10 | 29229ms |
| 54 | `3a4c347c…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 15864ms |
| 55 | `ec2fccc9…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 26594ms |
| 56 | `8c8fc328…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 15191ms |
| 57 | `e222075d…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | Yes | 5 | 5/10 | 22971ms |
| 58 | `c94452e4…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 4/10 | 32049ms |
| 59 | `75401f7c…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 22401ms |
| 60 | `a941b6d8…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 34142ms |
| 61 | `8079e27d…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 12650ms |
| 62 | `e21cd746…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 22086ms |
| 63 | `9e8607e7…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 28355ms |
| 64 | `c7d83f01…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 4 | 5/10 | 32456ms |
| 65 | `46b34f78…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 22487ms |
| 66 | `a1963a68…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 24209ms |
| 67 | `5f6c57dd…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 15423ms |
| 68 | `b39a5aa7…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 4/10 | 17961ms |
| 69 | `b78fd844…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 21906ms |
| 70 | `4520f882…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 5/10 | 14694ms |
| 71 | `ec591973…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 15932ms |
| 72 | `62f04c2f…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 17934ms |
| 73 | `3f821c2d…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 21887ms |
| 74 | `e996036e…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 4/10 | 15456ms |
| 75 | `327fbc21…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 4/10 | 18207ms |
| 76 | `6dcae3f5…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 19936ms |
| 77 | `1aecc095…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 27638ms |
| 78 | `0353ee0c…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 17598ms |
| 79 | `40a8c4b1…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 17151ms |
| 80 | `4d1a8410…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 3/10 | 18298ms |
| 81 | `8c823e32…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 26508ms |
| 82 | `eb54f575…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 21444ms |
| 83 | `11e1b169…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 17896ms |
| 84 | `a95a5829…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 19186ms |
| 85 | `22c0809b…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 17106ms |
| 86 | `bf68f2ad…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 20499ms |
| 87 | `efca245f…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 17630ms |
| 88 | `9e39df84…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 4/10 | 21793ms |
| 89 | `68d8d901…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 17050ms |
| 90 | `1752cb53…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 7/10 | 14187ms |
| 91 | `bd72994f…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 22975ms |
| 92 | `211d0093…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 13408ms |
| 93 | `d4525420…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 11620ms |
| 94 | `45c6237b…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 8 | 7/10 | 21744ms |
| 95 | `cecac8f9…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 5 | 7/10 | 29591ms |
| 96 | `8f9e8bcd…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 16414ms |
| 97 | `0fad6023…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 16062ms |
| 98 | `02314fc6…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 18318ms |
| 99 | `4d61a19a…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 7/10 | 17157ms |
| 100 | `6436ff9e…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 16480ms |
| 101 | `8a7b6fca…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 15743ms |
| 102 | `40a99a31…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 4 | 5/10 | 21225ms |
| 103 | `b9665ca1…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 19622ms |
| 104 | `c6269101…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 5 | 7/10 | 18331ms |
| 105 | `be830ca0…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 6 | 6/10 | 28283ms |
| 106 | `cd9efc18…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 22277ms |
| 107 | `a97369c7…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 28296ms |
| 108 | `3f625cb2…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 17150ms |
| 109 | `aad21e4c…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 19313ms |
| 110 | `8314d1b1…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 28895ms |
| 111 | `5e2b6aab…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 10 | 6/10 | 19125ms |
| 112 | `46fc494e…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 8 | 4/10 | 28895ms |
| 113 | `3940b7e7…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 23526ms |
| 114 | `8077e700…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 26308ms |
| 115 | `5a2d70da…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 25700ms |
| 116 | `74d6e8b0…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 26071ms |
| 117 | `81db15ff…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 14054ms |
| 118 | `61b0946a…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 22268ms |
| 119 | `61e7b9c6…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 14731ms |
| 120 | `c9bf9801…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 22070ms |
| 121 | `f1be6436…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 5 | 3/10 | 19050ms |
| 122 | `41f6ef59…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 13263ms |
| 123 | `a0552909…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 18381ms |
| 124 | `6d2c8e55…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 12 | 3/10 | 23346ms |
| 125 | `4b98ccce…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 24793ms |
| 126 | `60221cd0…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 17412ms |
| 127 | `ef8719da…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 18240ms |
| 128 | `3baa0009…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 20537ms |
| 129 | `5d0feb24…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 29977ms |
| 130 | `6974adea…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 28502ms |
| 131 | `1a78e076…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 38289ms |
| 132 | `1b9ec237…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 24496ms |
| 133 | `0112fc9b…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 16378ms |
| 134 | `772e7524…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 12953ms |
| 135 | `e6429658…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 31816ms |
| 136 | `b5d2e6f1…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 13873ms |
| 137 | `f841ddcf…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 13579ms |
| 138 | `47ef842d…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 15283ms |
| 139 | `1137e2bb…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 14600ms |
| 140 | `c3525d4d…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 17723ms |
| 141 | `9a0d8d36…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 13758ms |
| 142 | `664a42e5…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 17000ms |
| 143 | `feb5eefc…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 17812ms |
| 144 | `3600de06…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 16447ms |
| 145 | `c657103b…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 19888ms |
| 146 | `ae0c1093…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 4 | 9/10 | 16255ms |
| 147 | `f9f82549…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 9 | 7/10 | 17983ms |
| 148 | `57b2cdf2…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 17689ms |
| 149 | `84322284…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 18746ms |
| 150 | `a46d5cd2…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 17929ms |
| 151 | `6241e678…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 16959ms |
| 152 | `e14e32ba…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 17143ms |
| 153 | `b1a79ce1…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 15248ms |
| 154 | `e4f664ea…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 17926ms |
| 155 | `a079d38f…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 12897ms |
| 156 | `02aa1805…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 16355ms |
| 157 | `fd6129bd…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 22767ms |
| 158 | `ce864f41…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 14809ms |
| 159 | `58ac1cc5…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 5 | 8/10 | 27467ms |
| 160 | `3c19c6d1…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 17270ms |
| 161 | `a99d85fc…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 20708ms |
| 162 | `55ddb773…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 20489ms |
| 163 | `1e5a1d7f…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 14994ms |
| 164 | `0419f1c3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 17747ms |
| 165 | `ed2bc14c…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 19065ms |
| 166 | `46bc7238…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 9 | 7/10 | 21151ms |
| 167 | `2d06bc0a…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 24543ms |
| 168 | `fd3ad420…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 16428ms |
| 169 | `0818571f…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 24266ms |
| 170 | `6074bba3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 30802ms |
| 171 | `5ad0c554…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 16320ms |
| 172 | `11593a50…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 6 | 3/10 | 22674ms |
| 173 | `94925f49…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | Yes | 10 | 6/10 | 21166ms |
| 174 | `90f37ff3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 14842ms |
| 175 | `d3d255b2…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 18827ms |
| 176 | `403b9234…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 11695ms |
| 177 | `1bff4551…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 17243ms |
| 178 | `650adcb1…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 21111ms |
| 179 | `01d7e53e…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 16625ms |
| 180 | `a73fbc98…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 14402ms |
| 181 | `0ec25916…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 17362ms |
| 182 | `116e791e…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 17810ms |
| 183 | `dd724c67…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 15748ms |
| 184 | `7151c60a…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 20029ms |
| 185 | `90edba97…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 13499ms |
| 186 | `91060ff0…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 16183ms |
| 187 | `8384083a…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 16633ms |
| 188 | `045aba2e…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 6 | 7/10 | 14924ms |
| 189 | `f2986c1f…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 10841ms |
| 190 | `ffed32d8…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 20384ms |
| 191 | `b3573f20…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 16854ms |
| 192 | `a69be28f…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 20300ms |
| 193 | `788d2bc6…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 24375ms |
| 194 | `74ed1dc7…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 26132ms |
| 195 | `69a8ef86…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 24126ms |
| 196 | `ab81b076…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 17567ms |
| 197 | `d7cfae6f…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 14861ms |
| 198 | `19403010…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 16961ms |
| 199 | `7ed932dd…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 17012ms |
| 200 | `105f8ad0…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 18202ms |
| 201 | `b57efde3…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 15634ms |
| 202 | `15d37511…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 17611ms |
| 203 | `bb863dd9…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 17836ms |
| 204 | `fe0d3941…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 19635ms |
| 205 | `6a900a40…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 13527ms |
| 206 | `9efbcd35…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 16872ms |
| 207 | `1d4672c8…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 4/10 | 14583ms |
| 208 | `4de6a529…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 21442ms |
| 209 | `4c4dc603…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 17879ms |
| 210 | `bb499d9c…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 25612ms |
| 211 | `5349dd7b…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 17409ms |
| 212 | `a4a9195c…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 8/10 | 20182ms |
| 213 | `552b7dd0…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 20493ms |
| 214 | `11dcc268…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 14136ms |
| 215 | `76418a2c…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 13506ms |
| 216 | `0e386e32…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 12489ms |
| 217 | `7de33b48…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 4/10 | 18081ms |
| 218 | `854f3814…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 15611ms |
| 219 | `4122f866…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 23173ms |
| 220 | `2c249e0f…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 18545ms |

## QA Issues

### ✅ `83d10b06…` — score 7/10
- QoQ variance missing for rows with zero Q2 values.
- Column naming deviates from requested J and K conventions.
- Sample selection criteria coverage not explicitly evidenced in file.
  > 💡 Add variance handling for zero denominators and document how each sampling criterion is satisfied.

### ❌ `7b08cd4d…` — score 2/10
- Revenue and expense sheets contain no data; required tour stop and category breakdowns missing.
- No separation by source or combined totals; tax withholdings and USD conversions not applied.
- PnL totals are zero and lack supporting calculations and required header formatting.
  > 💡 Populate all sheets using reference data with proper source separation, tax calculations, USD conversion, and complete summaries.

### ❌ `7d7fc9a7…` — score 4/10
- Prepaid Summary lacks company name, reporting period, and reconciliation to GL balances.
- Ending balance is incorrect and does not reconcile to provided April GL balances.
- Detailed schedules omit original invoice amounts, amortization periods, and monthly rollforward summaries.
  > 💡 Revise schedules to include required columns, monthly summaries, headers, and ensure all totals reconcile to GL balances.

### ❌ `43dc9778…` — score 4/10
- Actual Form 1040 and schedules were not prepared with calculated amounts.
- PDF contains summary workpaper, not complete e-file-ready IRS forms.
- Several income amounts are missing or referenced instead of reported.
  > 💡 Prepare a fully calculated 2024 Form 1040 with all required IRS schedules in proper form.

### ❌ `ee09d943…` — score 4/10
- Workbook contains March dates and data instead of April updates.
- CFO-reserved tabs 1, 2, 2a, and 3 appear in the TOC.
- April source files are not clearly reflected in updated schedules.
  > 💡 Update all schedules to April data, remove CFO tabs, and align labels and dates to 4-30-25.

### ❌ `f84ea6ac…` — score 2/10
- Document lacks the required one-page summary table.
- Five post-2020 publicly available academic articles are not reviewed.
- Key findings and government implications are missing.
  > 💡 Revise the Word document to include a concise one-page table summarizing five eligible studies.

### ✅ `a328feea…` — score 9/10
- Procedure lacks guidance if Supervisor or Team Lead is unreachable by phone.
  > 💡 Add a brief escalation step identifying an alternate contact when the primary contact is unavailable.

### ✅ `27e8912c…` — score 6/10
- NIH checklist source is not cited or linked in the checklist documents.
- Organizational Action Items document lacks the required tracking table with columns.
- Image sources and public-domain status are not identified or cited.
  > 💡 Add source citations, convert the action items section into a tracking table, and document image provenance.

### ✅ `17111c03…` — score 7/10
- Excel schedule dates are for 2025, inconsistent with memo date of 2026.
- Excel schedule timing may not align with "today’s date" requirement.
  > 💡 Update the Excel schedule to reflect current-year dates consistent with the memo.

### ❌ `c44e9b62…` — score 3/10
- Total proposed FTEs equal current, failing the required minimum 4% reduction.
- Regional office reduction from 10 to 9 is not reflected in FTE totals.
- Organizational chart and FTE report show inconsistent or unsupported reductions.
  > 💡 Recalculate FTEs to achieve at least 4% reduction and align all files consistently.

### ✅ `99ac6944…` — score 7/10
- Mixer lacks sufficient auxiliary sends for two truly independent IEM mixes.
- PDF lacks explicit operational detail on creating independent singer mixes.
- Some required tools and adapters are not clearly itemized.
  > 💡 Select an analog mixer with at least two pre-fader aux sends and document mix routing clearly.

### ✅ `f9a1c16c…` — score 7/10
- Wedge numbering counterclockwise from stage right is not clearly indicated.
- Monitor mix contents, especially drummer hearing both vocalists, are not specified.
- Drummer wedge 10 o’clock placement is not explicitly labeled.
  > 💡 Clarify wedge numbering, monitor mix intents, and explicitly label drummer wedge position.

### ✅ `38889c3b…` — score 6/10
- No evidence the provided drum reference track was used or synchronized.
- Key signatures and bridge timing are not verifiably documented.
- Track duration and exact 140 BPM are not confirmed.
  > 💡 Include a production notes file confirming tempo, keys, drum usage, and section timestamps.

### ✅ `ff85ee58…` — score 6/10
- Audio loudness, bit depth, and sample rate claims are not verified or documented.
- Timing edits to 1/8th-note grid are asserted without evidence.
- Specific sax entry and exit times appear speculative.
  > 💡 Include an analysis report confirming LUFS, true-peak, sample rate, and timing edits.

### ✅ `4b894ae3…` — score 7/10
- No explicit confirmation that wrong bass notes were replaced using in-key notes from song repeats.
- Response does not reference or confirm use of the provided Bass Edit Spots timecodes.
- Includes an unnecessary CONFIDENCE tag not requested in the deliverable.
  > 💡 Briefly confirm specific edit methods and reference the provided timecode document for completeness.

### ✅ `1b1ade2d…` — score 8/10
- Text response is meta-descriptive rather than summarizing key workflow changes.
  > 💡 Include a brief executive summary of the revised workflow in the text response.

### ✅ `93b336f3…` — score 8/10
- Introduces a 49:51 ownership split not specified in the original task.
- Does not explicitly summarise total savings over the full five-year horizon.
  > 💡 Clarify assumptions and add a five-year cumulative savings summary for completeness.

### ✅ `15ddd28d…` — score 8/10
- Minor typographical error observed in transition timeline section.
- Preview shows truncation, requiring confirmation of complete final section.
  > 💡 Perform a final proofread and verify all sections are complete before executive circulation.

### ✅ `24d1e93f…` — score 6/10
- Tooling amortization ignores 100,000-set cap and over-allocates beyond Year 3.
- R&D costs are not shown as split equally between base and top variants.
- Assumptions section is incomplete and truncated in the summary sheet.
  > 💡 Correct tooling amortization logic, explicitly split R&D by variant, and fully document assumptions.

### ❌ `05389f78…` — score 4/10
- Report lacks required numeric cost analysis using provided quotation figures in INR.
- Alternate supplier comparison is qualitative and incomplete, missing calculations and tables.
- Termination email does not explicitly address design head and relationship manager.
  > 💡 Revise the report to include full INR cost calculations from quotes and complete supplier comparison.

### ✅ `575f8679…` — score 8/10
- Appendix instruments lack sample questions or direct links to validated tools.
- Data analysis methods could specify statistical tests beyond descriptive comparisons.
  > 💡 Add sample instrument items and clarify specific quantitative analyses to strengthen rigor.

### ✅ `a74ead3b…` — score 6/10
- Content not verified as closely aligned with the official manual.
- Response relies on inability to access required reference materials.
- No evidence provided that session-specific objectives were accurately followed.
  > 💡 Revise presentations to explicitly map slides to the official manual content for Sessions 13 and 14.

### ✅ `bbe0a93b…` — score 6/10
- Spanish needs assessment lacks the required screening table with yes/no columns.
- Spanish needs assessment appears incomplete compared to English version.
- Spanish PDF content is not clearly equivalent to the English PDF.
  > 💡 Ensure the Spanish needs assessment PDF fully mirrors the English version with all required tables.

### ❌ `85d95ce5…` — score 4/10
- Template placeholders remain uncompleted, including XX fields and narrative prompts.
- School name is inconsistent, using an actual school instead of SCHOOL.
- PDF filename is incorrect with a double period and formatting issues.
  > 💡 Fully complete the template, standardize SCHOOL usage, correct the PDF filename, and verify required length.

### ✅ `76d10872…` — score 8/10
- PDF preview shows truncated DOB field in Case Initiation section.
- Minor formatting line break in PDF around system requirements text.
  > 💡 Review final PDF formatting to ensure no truncated fields or line breaks remain.

### ✅ `36d567ba…` — score 8/10
- Conflict-of-interest question includes a second part despite the stated exception.
- Topic 11 high-risk status is not visible in the provided preview.
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing completed deliverable.
  > 💡 Revise conflict-of-interest to single-part and confirm Topic 11 is clearly included.

### ✅ `2696757c…` — score 7/10
- An extra DOCX file was produced despite requesting a single PDF deliverable.
  > 💡 Limit future outputs to only the explicitly requested file formats.

### ✅ `4c18ebae…` — score 8/10
- Text response includes unnecessary CONFIDENCE tag.
- SAR narrative lacks specific transaction dates and amounts.
- Excel summary tab referenced but not evidenced in preview.
  > 💡 Remove extraneous tags and add concrete transaction details and verified summary tab.

### ✅ `c2e8f271…` — score 8/10
- No explicit Next.js API or routing standards defined.
- Database migration and schema versioning standards are missing.
- No concrete examples for PR titles or commit messages.
  > 💡 Add concise examples and expand standards for APIs and database migrations in the next revision.

### ✅ `2ea2e5b5…` — score 5/10
- Output does not perform required activity classification per provided mappings.
- No evidence Excel source data was used or referenced.
- Deliverable format was not explicitly requested in original task.
  > 💡 Directly analyze the Excel data and present explicit category classifications as specified.

### ✅ `c357f0e2…` — score 6/10
- Excel column headers do not match required UAT template fields.
- Viewer role incorrectly includes create actions despite view-only permissions.
- Actual Result and Test Date columns are unnamed and unclear.
  > 💡 Align column headers to the template and correct role-based permission test cases.

### ✅ `a45bc83b…` — score 7/10
- Cloud Armor is incorrectly described as providing Layer 3 and Layer 4 protection.
- Architecture diagram appears text-based and may not use official GCP icons.
- An extra PPTX file was produced but not requested.
  > 💡 Correct DDoS protection descriptions and update the diagram to clearly use official GCP icons only.

### ❌ `a10ec48c…` — score 2/10
- Document lacks required tables with five specified columns.
- No restaurant entries, links, hours, descriptions, directions, or categories provided.
- Sources were not applied and closed restaurants not addressed.
  > 💡 Populate complete tables with sourced, verified restaurant data meeting all specified column requirements.

### ✅ `fccaa4a1…` — score 8/10
- PDF lacks visible icons or visual elements to organize sections.
- Image source is not cited as royalty-free or attributed.
- Tour is small-group, not clearly positioned as VIP private.
  > 💡 Add icons, cite the image source, and clarify VIP positioning in the PDF design.

### ✅ `f5d428fd…` — score 7/10
- No citation or proof images are from legitimate royalty-free sources.
- Destination descriptions mostly meet but do not consistently reach four sentences.
- PDF page count and image placement per destination are not clearly verified.
  > 💡 Add explicit royalty-free image credits and confirm two-page PDF layout with images per destination.

### ✅ `2fa8e956…` — score 6/10
- No cited sources for wineries, distances, or drive times.
- Grape varieties are not formatted in purple Georgia 9 pt.
- Royalty-free image source and attribution are missing.
  > 💡 Add proper sourcing, correct text formatting, and include image attribution to meet all requirements.

### ✅ `0e4fe8cd…` — score 6/10
- Links are placeholders or plain text, not verifiable URLs.
- Insufficient factual research for restaurants, guides, and service providers.
- High-value individuals to connect with are minimally identified.
  > 💡 Replace all placeholder links with verified URLs and expand researched contacts and venues.

### ✅ `aa071045…` — score 6/10
- Service Request Form lacks required details like vehicle info, damage description, request type, and status.
- Damage type revenues do not reconcile with the stated total damage revenue.
- Service Request Form content appears incomplete with only headers shown.
  > 💡 Ensure the Word form includes all specified fields and align Excel totals across all breakdowns.

### ❌ `476db143…` — score 4/10
- Resident names are missing from the inspection tracking PDF.
- Move-out date column contains incorrect unit numbers instead of dates.
- Inspection dates appear inconsistent without documented resident requests.
  > 💡 Correct the tracking PDF using reference data and verify all dates and resident names.

### ✅ `61f546a8…` — score 7/10
- M30 staff work dates are inconsistent between DOCX and PDF.
- PDF content appears truncated, cutting off M30 details.
- Appliance installation extra day is not clearly scheduled as a separate workday.
  > 💡 Reconcile schedules across files, complete the PDF, and explicitly show added appliance installation days.

### ✅ `f3351922…` — score 8/10
- Email omits military-specific details like combat zone tax-exempt contributions.
- Benefits section could clarify vesting and matching rules during transition.
- Text response describes deliverable instead of summarizing key content.
  > 💡 Add concise military-specific TSP benefits and include a brief summary in the text response.

### ✅ `61717508…` — score 6/10
- Training deck is only two pages, not approximately ten pages as required.
- Visual design and color elements are minimal, reducing engagement for trainees.
  > 💡 Expand the training PDF to around ten pages with added visuals, examples, and spacing.

### ✅ `0ed38524…` — score 6/10
- Talking points list duplicates the 'General' category.
- District summary contains spelling and grammar errors.
- One constituent comment is truncated and incomplete.
  > 💡 Proofread documents, remove duplicates, and fix truncated or misspelled content before final submission.

### ✅ `87da214f…` — score 6/10
- Slide content cannot be verified against requirements due to missing preview.
- Financial impact, dollar amounts, and percentages are not evidenced.
- Policy language update option inclusion is unconfirmed.
  > 💡 Provide a slide-by-slide summary or screenshots to verify required content.

### ✅ `d025a41c…` — score 6/10
- Final alternative statement is truncated and incomplete.
- Case titles are not shown in bold as required.
- Line spacing of 1.5 cannot be verified from the document.
  > 💡 Complete the truncated sentence and ensure formatting requirements are clearly applied throughout.

### ✅ `401a07f1…` — score 6/10
- Reference news sources are mentioned but no clickable hyperlinks are included.
- File preview suggests the document text may be truncated or incomplete.
- Exact 500-word length is not clearly verifiable.
  > 💡 Add verified hyperlinks to cited articles, ensure complete text, and confirm final word count.

### ✅ `9a8c8e28…` — score 8/10
- One further reading link appears truncated or incomplete.
- Quiz content was not previewed to confirm answer explanations and scoring guide.
  > 💡 Verify all bibliography links and add a brief quiz preview or summary in the response.

### ❌ `3a4c347c…` — score 4/10
- Weekly plan delivers one online feature per week instead of the required two.
- KPIs section is incomplete and omits social engagement and sponsorship success measures.
- Schedule and story count do not fully align with stated four-week production requirements.
  > 💡 Expand to eight online features, complete KPIs, and realign the schedule to match requirements.

### ❌ `ec2fccc9…` — score 4/10
- Article is significantly under 1,500 words and content appears truncated.
- Secondary keywords list and pull-quote caption are missing.
- Several required elements lack depth, including artist highlights and news links.
  > 💡 Expand and complete the article to meet length, SEO, and structural requirements.

### ✅ `e222075d…` — score 5/10
- Scratch voiceover is silent, not read from the script as required.
- Stock log lacks direct preview links to specific clips and music selections.
- MP4 file size suggests placeholder content, not a full 30-second 1080p edit.
  > 💡 Provide a spoken scratch VO, specific stock preview links, and a verified full-quality 30-second edit.

### ❌ `c94452e4…` — score 4/10
- Uses placeholder visuals and audio instead of sourced royalty-free stock footage and music.
- Music is not edited and embedded into the 15-second MP4 deliverable.
- Use of provided Photoshop supers is not demonstrated in the output.
  > 💡 Replace placeholders with sourced stock, embed edited music, apply PSD supers, and export a final broadcast-ready cut.

### ❌ `75401f7c…` — score 3/10
- Final MP4 showreel was not produced.
- Required resolution, codec, and duration were not delivered.
- Task requested edited video, not planning documents.
  > 💡 Render and deliver the completed 01:20 MP4 showreel per specifications.

### ❌ `a941b6d8…` — score 3/10
- No finished MP4 video was created as explicitly required.
- Required compositing, tracking, grading, and effects were not actually executed.
- Deliverables are planning documents instead of the requested final visual effect shot.
  > 💡 Produce and deliver the fully composited MP4 matching the base clip specifications.

### ❌ `8079e27d…` — score 3/10
- No actual S&P 500 company or sub-sector data populated.
- Missing sub-sector aggregation, company counts, and % of index calculations.
- Does not leverage or include publicly sourced market data.
  > 💡 Populate the workbook with full S&P 500 data and required sub-sector summaries using current public sources.

### ✅ `e21cd746…` — score 7/10
- Private company slides omit key investors and key customers.
- Valuations and funding lack sourcing or indication they are estimates.
- Public comps slide lacks timeframe and source for multiples.
  > 💡 Add investors, customers, and cited valuation sources to strengthen client credibility.

### ✅ `9e8607e7…` — score 8/10
- Slide count is below the requested ~30-slide target.
- Limited explicit guidance on structuring operating versus investing entities.
  > 💡 Add a few slides on entity structuring and key country entry considerations to strengthen advisory value.

### ✅ `c7d83f01…` — score 5/10
- Notebook is extremely small, likely lacking full implementations and documentation.
- Convergence analysis plots are missing despite being required.
- Monte Carlo methodology implementation cannot be verified from provided content.
  > 💡 Expand the notebook with complete, well-documented implementations and include explicit convergence analyses.

### ✅ `46b34f78…` — score 7/10
- Bond analysis uses representative issuers without naming specific companies.
- No explicit use or citation of provided reference market data.
- Appendix with source data is mentioned but not clearly included.
  > 💡 Name specific issuers and explicitly reference supporting public data sources in an appendix.

### ✅ `a1963a68…` — score 7/10
- Future-proofing and sustainability initiatives are not clearly covered in core slides.
- Limited explicit data citations and sources despite research requirement.
- Regulatory strategy lacks concrete actionable steps and timelines.
  > 💡 Add a dedicated future-proofing slide with data-backed regulatory and sustainability actions.

### ❌ `b39a5aa7…` — score 4/10
- Projection outputs are blank and lack calculated quarterly totals and YoY growth.
- Input fields do not cover all compensation drivers and roster-based variables.
- Calculations tab lacks transparent, auditable formulas tied to inputs and projections.
  > 💡 Populate projections with formulas, expand editable drivers, and show full calculation logic linked across tabs.

### ✅ `b78fd844…` — score 8/10
- Text response is generic and lacks a substantive summary of findings.
- Reliance on file content makes validation harder without full review.
  > 💡 Include a concise executive summary of key conclusions in the text response.

### ✅ `4520f882…` — score 5/10
- Rates appear generic and not demonstrably sourced from the provided CBA excerpt.
- Workbook lacks visible validations or highlights flagging CBA conflicts.
- Payroll categories required by the contract are not fully itemized or totaled.
  > 💡 Align rates and calculations explicitly to CBA terms and add validations and category breakdowns.

### ✅ `ec591973…` — score 6/10
- Text response summarizes intent but provides no actual strategy content.
- Cannot verify slide meets differentiation and investment requirements without preview.
- No explicit channel-specific tactics or metrics referenced.
  > 💡 Include concrete channel strategies and KPIs in the text or provide a slide content summary.

### ✅ `62f04c2f…` — score 6/10
- Excel form lacks required freight prepayment and restocking fee note.
- Excel form is missing signature and date spaces for rep, GM, and Sales Manager.
  > 💡 Add the missing notes and signature sections to the Excel Exchange Authorization form.

### ❌ `3f821c2d…` — score 3/10
- EOM Inventory and Turn rows contain no calculations or formulas.
- E-commerce January receipts are negative and violate minimum receipt constraints.
- Omni and last-year benchmark tables are missing or incomplete.
  > 💡 Complete calculations, fix receipt allocations, add omni and LY tables, and validate all constraints.

### ❌ `e996036e…` — score 4/10
- No quarterly breakdown or cash flow timing by quarter is shown.
- Wholesale revenue and marketing allowance calculations are mathematically incorrect.
- Required visual chart comparing scenario favorability is missing.
  > 💡 Add correct quarterly calculations, cash flow timing, and a comparison chart, then recalculate all financials accurately.

### ❌ `327fbc21…` — score 4/10
- Missing required rollup lines for Total Stores, Closed Stores, and Comp Stores.
- No clear identification or exclusion of closed stores based on active door indicator.
- Required numeric May summary sentence with dollars and LY comparisons is missing.
  > 💡 Add rollup rows, clearly flag active versus closed stores, and include the required numeric May summary.

### ❌ `6dcae3f5…` — score 4/10
- Key indicator columns are unnamed, making metrics unclear and unprofessional.
- Benchmarks are not calculated per PGY year-over-year as required.
- No analysis shows when each PGY-5 met ACGME graduation requirements.
  > 💡 Rename all indicators, compute PGY-specific benchmarks, and add a table mapping ACGME requirements to PGY achievement.

### ❌ `0353ee0c…` — score 3/10
- Document lacks actual lists of presumptive conditions, locations, and dates.
- Content uses generic placeholders instead of consolidated information from Document B.
- Output admits no external review, violating core task requirements.
  > 💡 Rebuild the PDF with exhaustive, verified tables compiled directly from all Document B links.

### ❌ `40a8c4b1…` — score 4/10
- Grand rounds sessions are split into hourly rows instead of single 7–9 AM Wednesday sessions.
- In-Service Study Session placement in late February is not clearly present or verified.
- Many cells contain placeholders like "Topics" instead of finalized scheduled content.
  > 💡 Revise the sheet to one 7–9 AM entry per Wednesday, ensure February In-Service placement, and fully populate all topics.

### ❌ `4d1a8410…` — score 3/10
- Master schedule lacks detailed table with interview rotations, buffers, breaks, and room assignments.
- Specific constraints for Dr. Jones and Dr. Garrett are not scheduled or evidenced.
- Personal itineraries omit times, tour sequencing, and interview order details.
  > 💡 Provide a fully timed tabular schedule and timed one-page itineraries meeting all stated constraints.

### ✅ `eb54f575…` — score 8/10
- Text response summarizes intent instead of presenting substantive report content.
  > 💡 Include key findings and recommendations directly in the text response for completeness.

### ✅ `11e1b169…` — score 8/10
- KRS 503.090 deadly force standard is summarized and may omit specific statutory qualifiers.
- Protective sweep section lacks clear reference to incident-to-arrest limitations.
- No citations or case examples are included for quick legal anchoring.
  > 💡 Add brief statutory language excerpts or citations to strengthen legal precision.

### ✅ `22c0809b…` — score 8/10
- Signature and Date Submitted section not clearly visible in preview.
- Minor truncation/typo in Action Taken section text.
- PDF page count not explicitly confirmed as 2–4 pages.
  > 💡 Add a clearly labeled Signature and Date section and proofread final PDF formatting.

### ❌ `bf68f2ad…` — score 3/10
- Production hours calculations contradict stated 30 hours per day capacity.
- Cumulative balance worsens, failing to demonstrate a feasible catch-up.
- Plan never illustrates reduction to five or four-day schedules.
  > 💡 Recalculate weekly capacity correctly and model a realistic step-down once backlog is eliminated.

### ❌ `efca245f…` — score 4/10
- Plans do not separate Crew Cab and Extended Cab production or priorities.
- Open POs and cumulative PO recovery tracking are missing.
- Capacity changes, grill guard requirements, and holidays are not correctly modeled.
  > 💡 Rebuild the Excel plans to model product-level POs, correct capacities, grill guard demand, and calendar constraints.

### ❌ `9e39df84…` — score 4/10
- Average Output and Total Output columns are not calculated and remain blank.
- Dashboard lacks PivotTables, charts, week selectors, and YTD leaderboard.
- Conditional formatting for top and bottom performers is missing or not evident.
  > 💡 Complete formulas, add required PivotTables and charts, enable week selection, and apply conditional formatting.

### ✅ `68d8d901…` — score 7/10
- Production capacity per batch and lbs per dryer are not defined.
- Production sequences lack quantified staggering offsets to verify continuous throughput.
- Assignments do not explicitly map all 20 individuals to named positions.
  > 💡 Add batch capacity data, explicit dryer offset timing, and a per-person assignment table to ensure target feasibility.

### ✅ `1752cb53…` — score 7/10
- Text response claims calculations without summarizing compliance to daily minute limits.
- Sheet includes extraneous unnamed columns beyond required planning fields.
- Press assignment logic is unclear with both press-specific columns and a Press Number column.
  > 💡 Add a brief summary validating rule compliance and remove redundant or unused structural columns.

### ✅ `bd72994f…` — score 8/10
- PDF relies on textual descriptions without visual imagery.
- PPTX file was unnecessary per original requirements.
  > 💡 Include official lookbook images in the PDF to better support client-facing outreach.

### ✅ `211d0093…` — score 7/10
- No clear column to record assigned employee names per task.
- Manager sign-off section lacks a signature field.
- DTL does not reference or cite the attached source task document.
  > 💡 Add an employee name column and manager signature line, and reference the source task document.

### ✅ `d4525420…` — score 8/10
- Text response did not directly include the requested 5–7 sentence paragraph.
  > 💡 Include the full written recommendation directly in the text response as well as the file.

### ✅ `45c6237b…` — score 7/10
- Final summary table with all SKUs, quantities, and wholesale pricing is missing.
- Wholesale pricing is not shown for Custom Shirts.
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing completed work.
  > 💡 Add a clear final summary table slide listing every SKU with quantities and wholesale pricing.

### ✅ `cecac8f9…` — score 7/10
- Uses USD currency despite UK store context requiring GBP.
- Team launch deck lacks clear promotional offer details.
- Deck content appears very high-level for all-day instructional use.
  > 💡 Localize targets to GBP and add specific Black Friday offers and execution details to the deck.

### ✅ `0fad6023…` — score 5/10
- Total and remaining inches are not calculated; no formulas are present.
- Instructions reference incorrect row numbers compared to the POG Builder layout.
- POG Builder lacks clear visual formatting to distinguish individual pans.
  > 💡 Add working formulas, correct instruction references, and apply borders or shading to visually separate pans.

### ✅ `02314fc6…` — score 9/10
- Checklist lacks store identification fields such as store number, location, and inspection date.
- No signature or acknowledgment section for Store Manager, GM, or DM review.
  > 💡 Add store details and management sign-off sections to strengthen accountability and audit readiness.

### ✅ `4d61a19a…` — score 7/10
- Excel template lacks visible field protection restricting store edits.
- No instructions or guidance sheet included in the Excel template.
- PowerPoint slide count and required training sections are not verifiable.
  > 💡 Add field protection and instructions to Excel, and verify the deck meets all training requirements under eight slides.

### ✅ `6436ff9e…` — score 9/10
- Marketing outreach questions could include paid ads or newsletters.
- Rating scales lack numeric values for easier data analysis.
  > 💡 Add numeric rating options and a few more detailed marketing source choices.

### ✅ `8a7b6fca…` — score 7/10
- Text truncation and overlapping labels reduce readability in the PDF.
- Decision point wording is cut and unclear for compatibility logic.
- Some lane titles appear partially rendered or misspelled.
  > 💡 Refine layout spacing and text wrapping to ensure all labels render clearly in the PDF.

### ✅ `40a99a31…` — score 5/10
- Camera requirement unmet: only one camera listed; minimum six required.
- LIDAR coverage under-specified: static zones count and placement not detailed.
- Safety compliance and per-mill hardware quantities not documented.
  > 💡 Expand hardware table to include quantities, zone-specific LIDAR mapping, camera count, and safety standards compliance.

### ✅ `b9665ca1…` — score 5/10
- E-stop series versus parallel wiring requirements are inconsistent and unclear.
- Safety relay configuration lacks explicit note of no cross-fault monitoring.
- Drawing tool does not match specified Visio, Electra, or AutoCAD Electrical.
  > 💡 Revise schematic to strictly match wiring logic, relay configuration, and specified drafting software.

### ✅ `c6269101…` — score 7/10
- Text response summarizes intent rather than presenting actual analytical findings.
- Process with greatest variability is not explicitly identified in the text.
- Confidence tag is extraneous and not part of requested deliverable.
  > 💡 Include key findings and identified highest-variability process directly in the written summary.

### ✅ `be830ca0…` — score 6/10
- No evidence of a 1-sample hypothesis test output file or chart.
- Results and statistical conclusions are described but not explicitly shown.
- Use of Minitab was implied but not demonstrated or referenced in outputs.
  > 💡 Add the missing hypothesis test output and clearly summarize statistical conclusions on the slides.

### ✅ `cd9efc18…` — score 6/10
- PDF length is five pages, below the required approximately eight to eleven pages.
- Execution details with date, witnesses, and notary are not confirmed in the preview.
  > 💡 Expand the document to the required length and clearly include full execution and self-proving affidavit sections.

### ✅ `a97369c7…` — score 8/10
- Moelis is misidentified as a Delaware Supreme Court decision.
- Some statutory citations appear duplicated or incomplete in formatting.
- Minor typographical truncation appears in the board fiduciary duty section.
  > 💡 Correct court attribution, clean statutory citations, and proofread formatting before final delivery.

### ✅ `3f625cb2…` — score 6/10
- Legal options section appears incomplete and cuts off mid-bullet.
- Memo lacks clear recommendations or next steps for the client.
- California child-specific law like the Age-Appropriate Design Code is not addressed.
  > 💡 Complete the memo with finalized legal options, clear recommendations, and relevant California child privacy laws.

### ✅ `aad21e4c…` — score 6/10
- Anti-dilution and top-up mechanics are incomplete or unclear.
- Minority consent rights over extraordinary actions are insufficiently detailed.
- Capitalization schedule before and after issuance is not clearly included.
  > 💡 Expand investor protection sections and add a detailed cap table schedule to fully meet requirements.

### ✅ `8314d1b1…` — score 9/10
- Memo 'From' line uses generic 'Counsel' rather than identified firm or attorney.
  > 💡 Consider adding counsel identification and contact details for a more professional presentation.

### ✅ `5e2b6aab…` — score 6/10
- No power switch component or glove-operable switch design is provided.
- Thermal management to prevent overheating across -20C to 40C is not addressed.
- PDF drawings lack required sub-assembly drawings beyond the main assembly.
  > 💡 Add a switch, thermal design features, and full sub-assembly drawings to meet all requirements.

### ❌ `46fc494e…` — score 4/10
- Back-face temperatures remain unrealistically constant at 25 C despite severe external heating.
- No numerical node temperature values are reported, only plots.
- Model validity and solution details are insufficiently documented.
  > 💡 Recompute the transient solution, report numeric node temperatures, and verify boundary condition implementation.

### ❌ `3940b7e7…` — score 3/10
- Numerical results tables are missing and replaced by placeholders.
- Key performance metrics like velocities, turbulence, and forces are not reported.
- Boundary conditions, mesh, and material properties lack required specificity.
  > 💡 Populate the report with actual CFD data tables and detailed simulation parameters from the provided results.

### ✅ `8077e700…` — score 6/10
- AISI 1045 analysis relies on domain knowledge without using provided experimental data.
- Results lack tables and multiple graphs explicitly derived from Data.xlsx.
- Experimental procedure omits detailed quenching parameters and testing conditions.
  > 💡 Incorporate Data.xlsx results for both steels with explicit tables, graphs, and complete heat-treatment details.

### ✅ `5a2d70da…` — score 6/10
- Master Tool List lacks required pre-tax subtotal and post-tax grand total.
- Suffolk County sales tax is not calculated or shown.
- No tap holder listed for the specified tapping operation.
  > 💡 Add tax totals, include a tap holder, and update the Master Tool List accordingly.

### ✅ `74d6e8b0…` — score 9/10
- Citations appear referenced by organization and year but full reference details are unclear.
  > 💡 Add a clearly formatted references section with complete citation details for all sources.

### ✅ `81db15ff…` — score 7/10
- Text response describes intended deliverables instead of summarizing findings directly.
- Some PA supervision ratios and chart-signature requirements are generalized and may vary by agreement.
- Telehealth-specific regulatory nuances are not explicitly addressed.
  > 💡 Add a brief summary of findings in the text response and clarify state-specific PA requirements.

### ✅ `61b0946a…` — score 7/10
- Assumes a $9,000 annual cadaver cost without a provided budget source.
- Does not detail scheduling logistics within the three-hour post-thaw window.
- Governance, consent, and interdepartmental coordination processes are not specified.
  > 💡 Add a brief implementation section covering costs source, scheduling, and governance.

### ❌ `61e7b9c6…` — score 4/10
- Common off-label menopause treatments like SSRIs, gabapentin, and clonidine are missing.
- Spreadsheet contains multiple blank rows and appears incomplete or improperly structured.
- Estimated costs lack currency designation and sourcing detail.
  > 💡 Expand the formulary to include standard off-label therapies and clean formatting to fully match the template.

### ✅ `c9bf9801…` — score 6/10
- Required 4-month and 8-month evaluation forms were not produced.
- Guide does not clearly include credits acknowledging NCIPC program inspiration.
- Program guide lacks confirmed links to the separate application and roadmap documents.
  > 💡 Add the missing evaluation forms, NCIPC credit section, and explicit document links, then recheck completeness.

### ❌ `f1be6436…` — score 3/10
- Used placeholder screenshots instead of real, time-stamped source captures.
- Did not calculate departmental versus discretionary fund allocations.
- Ignored Dr. Doe’s early departure constraint in travel and lodging details.
  > 💡 Redo with real screenshots, exact dates, detailed itineraries, and full cost allocation calculations.

### ✅ `41f6ef59…` — score 7/10
- Spreadsheet lacks visible dropdowns or checkboxes for efficient data entry.
- No data validation shown for subscription types or Yes/No fields.
  > 💡 Add dropdown menus or checkboxes with data validation to improve spreadsheet usability.

### ❌ `6d2c8e55…` — score 3/10
- Articles are placeholders, not accessible peer-reviewed PDFs or linked PDFs as required.
- Journal club bookings are not clearly added or labeled in the room availability schedule.
- Holiday and conference conflicts were not verified or documented.
  > 💡 Provide real open-access articles, explicitly book rooms on valid dates, and document holiday checks.

### ✅ `4b98ccce…` — score 6/10
- Excel contains incomplete and blank patient rows.
- One deceased patient record shows an incomplete date of birth.
- Correspondence letters omit the employee ID in the signature block.
  > 💡 Clean all patient records, correct missing data, and add employee ID to both letter signatures.

### ✅ `ef8719da…` — score 7/10
- Pitch text response did not include the actual written pitch content.
- Hyperlinks to background sources are not clearly included in the document.
- Tentative timeline for draft submission is unclear or missing.
  > 💡 Include the full pitch text in the response and clearly add links and a reporting timeline.

### ✅ `3baa0009…` — score 7/10
- Article likely falls below the 300-word minimum requirement.
- The forecast is not described as negative global growth as explicitly requested.
  > 💡 Expand the article with clearer discussion of negative growth framing and add more contextual detail.

### ✅ `5d0feb24…` — score 8/10
- Hyperlinks to the arXiv paper and NASA sources are not consistently visible in comments.
- Some suggested edits are duplicated verbatim across multiple paragraphs.
- A few sections remain generic and could tie novelty to the specific paper more tightly.
  > 💡 Add explicit hyperlinks and tighten repeated edits to directly reference the study’s unique methods and findings.

### ✅ `6974adea…` — score 5/10
- Article appears significantly below the 1,000-word minimum requirement.
- Limited use of direct interview quotations relative to task emphasis.
- Economic context on milk price pressures is only briefly addressed.
  > 💡 Expand the article to meet length requirements with deeper reporting and more interview-led sections.

### ✅ `1a78e076…` — score 7/10
- Document likely does not meet the required 10–15 page length.
- Explicit prevalence, age-group variation, and financial impact sections are not clearly delineated.
- Reference list length and adherence to the 30-source limit are not verified.
  > 💡 Expand content to meet page requirements and clearly label required analytic elements and references.

### ✅ `1b9ec237…` — score 7/10
- Slide count and content compliance cannot be verified without preview.
- Pre-test question and case study presence are unconfirmed.
- Speaker notes and AHA guideline accuracy are unverified.
  > 💡 Provide a slide outline or screenshots to verify all required elements and compliance.

### ✅ `0112fc9b…` — score 9/10
- Family history summarized as noncontributory despite detailed data provided.
  > 💡 Explicitly list pertinent family history elements rather than summarizing as noncontributory.

### ✅ `772e7524…` — score 8/10
- Text response does not directly include the SOAP note content.
- Antibiotic plan lacks specific drug choice and dosing.
- Assessment includes a redundant acute febrile illness diagnosis.
  > 💡 Include the full SOAP note in the text response with specific antibiotic selection and dosing.

### ✅ `e6429658…` — score 5/10
- Appeal letter appears under two pages, not meeting the 2–4 page requirement.
- AbbVie assistance application content was not verified or previewed for completeness.
- Some appeal letter sections appear truncated or incomplete.
  > 💡 Expand the appeal to full length and ensure the assistance application is fully completed and reviewed.

### ❌ `b5d2e6f1…` — score 4/10
- Sales by Store tab is missing from the workbook.
- Sales by Brand tab lacks required grand total row.
- Sales by Brand column order does not match specified WTD/MTD/YTD structure.
  > 💡 Add the Sales by Store pivot tab and include correctly ordered columns with grand totals on both summary tabs.

### ✅ `47ef842d…` — score 6/10
- Weeks of Supply values are unrealistically high, indicating a sales rate calculation error.
- Weekly unit rate of sale appears mis-scaled and not clearly derived from daily sales.
- Methodology for defining active stores with out-of-stock percentage is not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Recalculate weekly sales rates and WOS with correct units and clearly document store-level aggregation logic.

### ✅ `1137e2bb…` — score 8/10
- Summary table is not a pivot table but a static SKU-PO table.
- Word summary text is truncated at the end of the final paragraph.
- Minor floating-point precision issue in unit price display.
  > 💡 Convert the summary tab to a pivot table and clean formatting and text truncation.

### ✅ `c3525d4d…` — score 6/10
- Removed stores are not identified or listed anywhere.
- Final store list incorrectly labels all stores as new.
- Units with overage should be rounded to whole units.
  > 💡 Add a comparison showing added and removed stores and correct the final store list statuses.

### ✅ `9a0d8d36…` — score 7/10
- Cannot verify step-by-step calculations and assumptions without slide content visibility.
- ISO alternative minimum tax implications may be insufficiently addressed or absent.
- Vesting timeline and pre-vesting exercise constraints not clearly covered.
  > 💡 Include explicit calculation slides, AMT examples, and vesting constraints summary.

### ✅ `664a42e5…` — score 6/10
- PPT content not demonstrated; compliance with detailed requirements cannot be verified.
- No evidence of 2025 gift tax exclusion amount and Crummey timeline specifics.
- Side-by-side ILIT versus no-ILIT comparison not evidenced.
  > 💡 Provide slide summaries or previews confirming each required topic with specific figures and comparisons.

### ✅ `feb5eefc…` — score 8/10
- Document preview shows a truncated sentence and minor typographical error.
- PDF page count is not explicitly confirmed as within 12-page limit.
  > 💡 Proofread final documents and explicitly state PDF page count for compliance clarity.

### ✅ `3600de06…` — score 6/10
- Slide count cannot be verified as exactly ten slides.
- Explicit FINRA and NAIC source citations are not confirmed in slides.
- Required comparisons and penalty distinctions cannot be validated from preview.
  > 💡 Include a slide outline and explicit citations within the presentation to verify all requirements.

### ✅ `c657103b…` — score 6/10
- Starting retirement balance is $3.78M instead of stated $3.5M.
- PowerPoint use of specified business digital tunnel template is not verifiable.
- Estate tax implications and heir-focused benefits are not explicitly modeled in Excel.
  > 💡 Align assumptions exactly to client data and explicitly document template use and estate benefits.

### ✅ `ae0c1093…` — score 9/10
- File names do not exactly match the specified document titles.
  > 💡 Align file names exactly with the requested document titles for consistency.

### ✅ `f9f82549…` — score 7/10
- PDF appears text-based and may not contain an actual flowchart graphic.
- Flowchart graphic is provided as PNG but not clearly embedded in the PDF.
  > 💡 Embed the visual flowchart into the PDF to clearly present procedural flow.

### ✅ `57b2cdf2…` — score 8/10
- Surveillance terminated at 1:20 a.m., exceeding the requested 1:00 a.m. end time.
- Subject is labeled only as "Wife," which appears unprofessional and vague.
- Courtesy start time noted as 7:25 p.m. instead of stated 7:30 p.m.
  > 💡 Clarify timing deviations and replace "Wife" with a neutral identifier such as "Subject."

### ✅ `84322284…` — score 8/10
- Client name inconsistent between task and report.
- Reconstructed timeline contains limited daily detail.
- Unidentified male noted without documented follow-up steps.
  > 💡 Standardize client naming and expand the timeline with more granular, corroborated observations.

### ✅ `a46d5cd2…` — score 7/10
- PDF does not display company letterhead as required.
- Photographic evidence is referenced but not visibly embedded.
- Text response is procedural, not a substantive report summary.
  > 💡 Add letterhead and embed labeled photographs directly within the final PDF.

### ❌ `6241e678…` — score 4/10
- Excel schedule cells appear empty with no marked date ranges.
- PDF date headers are garbled and difficult to read.
- Deliverable includes unrequested production tasks beyond stated assumptions.
  > 💡 Populate and clearly mark scheduled date ranges with readable labels and limit tasks to requested scope.

### ✅ `e14e32ba…` — score 6/10
- Business hours are missing for all restaurants.
- Physical locations or addresses are not explicitly listed.
- Provided image links are websites, not actual photo URLs.
  > 💡 Add addresses, hours, and direct image URLs to fully meet the brief.

### ✅ `b1a79ce1…` — score 6/10
- Moodboard content not verified to include explicit color palette.
- Reference images are not described or confirmed in the file preview.
- Text response lacks concrete visual details from the brainstorming notes.
  > 💡 Add labeled color swatches and clearly identifiable reference imagery reflecting the stated themes.

### ❌ `e4f664ea…` — score 4/10
- Script length is three pages, not the required eight to twelve pages.
- Several action lines imply internal states, violating strict show-not-tell principles.
  > 💡 Expand the story visually to 8–12 pages and revise action lines to remove implied internal thoughts.

### ✅ `a079d38f…` — score 6/10
- Assumptions invent packages and video counts instead of using the provided video list.
- Two-camera shoot listed but only one videographer is budgeted.
- Administration fee is included despite not being requested in the scope.
  > 💡 Revise the Excel file to follow the provided video list and standard rates, correct staffing, and remove unrequested fees.

### ❌ `02aa1805…` — score 3/10
- No Illinois EPA data extracted; Excel sheets contain zero well records.
- Did not identify or highlight top viable wells meeting criteria.
- Email lacks recommendations and relies on data-access limitation.
  > 💡 Obtain IEPA factsheet data, populate wells, filter criteria, and provide concrete well recommendations.

### ✅ `fd6129bd…` — score 6/10
- SOP Section 6 Change Criteria is listed but contains no defined criteria.
- SOP Version History section lacks required entries or table.
- Change Request Form is missing key fields and approval signatures.
  > 💡 Populate missing SOP sections and complete the form with all required fields and approvals.

### ✅ `ce864f41…` — score 6/10
- Individual Utilization sheet has 24 rows instead of 23 employees.
- Ellen Zhu is missing department and capacity data.
- Two projects lack March budgeted hours, preventing variance analysis.
  > 💡 Validate source data completeness and align all sheets strictly to the 23-person registry and full project budgets.

### ✅ `58ac1cc5…` — score 8/10
- Change control not explicitly confirmed against the attached blank form.
- Duplicate Change Control Request provided in both PDF and DOCX formats.
  > 💡 Confirm template compliance and remove duplicate file to streamline QA review.

### ✅ `3c19c6d1…` — score 6/10
- Cannot verify slides meet exact required content due to unavailable PPT preview.
- Progress summary slide may not summarise tabular data as explicitly required.
- Mandatory Slide 3 bullet structure and exact fields are not confirmed.
  > 💡 Provide a slide-by-slide text summary or screenshots to enable proper QA verification.

### ✅ `a99d85fc…` — score 7/10
- Notes section below Annual Rent Matrix is not evident.
- Color-coding and light blue editable cells are not verifiable.
- Monthly matrix structure and 120-month detail are not clearly shown.
  > 💡 Add a visible Notes section and clearly label and color-code editable and scenario cells.

### ❌ `55ddb773…` — score 4/10
- Form contains numerous typos, truncated words, and formatting errors.
- Violation list appears incomplete and poorly structured.
- Architectural regulations are not clearly itemized as required.
  > 💡 Revise the PDF for accuracy, completeness, and clear formatting aligned exactly with the source violations document.

### ❌ `1e5a1d7f…` — score 3/10
- Required table with four columns is missing.
- No weekly schedule or tasks are listed.
- PM duties were not incorporated into the document.
  > 💡 Add a complete table with scheduled tasks derived from the provided PM duties.

### ✅ `0419f1c3…` — score 8/10
- Training module recommendations are not clearly justified against each identified performance gap.
- Completion objective allows 10% late work orders, which weakens alignment with company standards.
- Text response summarizes intent rather than the actual analysis performed.
  > 💡 Explicitly map each training module to a specific metric gap and tighten objectives to match stated standards.

### ✅ `ed2bc14c…` — score 8/10
- Exit survey analysis lacks explicit five-category breakdown.
- No quantitative counts or percentages from Excel data are shown.
- Email section provides concepts, not draft email copy.
  > 💡 Add a brief data table with category counts and include short draft email samples.

### ✅ `46bc7238…` — score 7/10
- One-page flyer template content is not clearly shown in the PDF text.
- Cold call and email scripts are overly generic with placeholders.
- Next Steps section content is minimal or unclear.
  > 💡 Expand scripts, clearly include a full flyer page, and add detailed actionable next steps.

### ✅ `2d06bc0a…` — score 8/10
- LOI expiration date is not clearly stated in the document.
  > 💡 Add a clear LOI expiration date within 7–10 days of delivery.

### ✅ `fd3ad420…` — score 7/10
- Commission splits lack specific percentage figures for agents, associate brokers, and qualifying brokers.
- Compensation Model Ideas reference is mentioned but not clearly integrated or cited.
- Text response summarizes intent rather than key compensation terms.
  > 💡 Add clear percentage examples and explicitly incorporate terms from the referenced compensation model.

### ✅ `0818571f…` — score 5/10
- Listings are illustrative samples, not verified active Crexi or LoopNet listings.
- Property photos and area maps are not actually included.
- Investor acquisition criteria from the PDF is not explicitly applied or analyzed.
  > 💡 Source real-time Crexi or LoopNet listings and include verified photos, maps, and criteria alignment analysis.

### ✅ `6074bba3…` — score 6/10
- Pricing statistics contain unresolved placeholders.
- Document shows '[Insert Graph]' placeholders indicating incomplete content.
- Valuation section lacks clearly defined low, mid, and high pricing tiers.
  > 💡 Finalize all placeholders, embed graphs, and clearly define low, mid, and high price recommendations.

### ✅ `5ad0c554…` — score 6/10
- Brochure lacks embedded photos or visuals within the Word document.
- No explicit references to specific items from “132 Things Realtors Do for Buyers.”
- Double-sided two-page layout is not clearly implemented.
  > 💡 Embed visuals, cite specific buyer services, and format as a clear two-page brochure.

### ❌ `11593a50…` — score 3/10
- Buyer tour PDF exceeds two-page requirement with 15 pages.
- Addresses show wrong town and ZIP, not Massapequa Park 11762.
- Uses placeholder images and proxy data instead of real MLSLI listings.
  > 💡 Rebuild deliverables using verified MLSLI data, correct location details, real photos, and strict page limits.

### ✅ `94925f49…` — score 6/10
- Some reports lack actual nearby home listings despite required section headers.
- School metrics are vague and lack specific academic statistics or cited sources.
- PDF reports are only one page and appear incomplete for buyer comparison.
  > 💡 Add sourced quantitative school data and complete nearby home tables in all PDF reports.

### ✅ `90f37ff3…` — score 6/10
- PDF is only three pages, not the required four-page report.
- DOCX lacks the detailed comparable table with addresses and asking rents.
- Market survey does not show lease dates to confirm activity within past three years.
  > 💡 Expand to four pages and add a dated comparable rent table with cited sources.

### ✅ `d3d255b2…` — score 8/10
- Conclusion paragraph is truncated and ends mid-sentence.
- Text response describes deliverable rather than summarizing key findings.
- Market analysis references appear assumed rather than explicitly attached.
  > 💡 Fix the truncated sentence and explicitly cite the attached market analysis source.

### ✅ `403b9234…` — score 8/10
- Slide count and content cannot be verified from provided preview.
- Text response contains minor grammar error ('an 9-slide').
  > 💡 Include a brief slide outline or notes to confirm requirements are met.

### ✅ `1bff4551…` — score 5/10
- Includes a non–African American act, contradicting the program focus.
- Original song has an invalid placeholder YouTube link.
- Set length likely under 45 minutes with only seven songs.
  > 💡 Replace the non-Black act, add more songs to reach 45 minutes, and provide a valid link for the original.

### ✅ `650adcb1…` — score 6/10
- Sixth tab for time off requests and notes is not clearly present.
- No explicit list of dates lacking two interns scheduled is visible.
- Monthly sheets beyond December lack the required color key.
  > 💡 Add a clear sixth tab summarizing time-off requests and understaffed dates, and include or reference the key consistently.

### ✅ `01d7e53e…` — score 7/10
- Primary contacts lack specific names, phone numbers, and email addresses.
- Text response summarizes intent instead of confirming document completeness.
  > 💡 Add detailed contact information and briefly confirm all required sections and exhibits are fully included.

### ✅ `0ec25916…` — score 7/10
- PDF is two pages instead of the required single page.
- Table structure of two columns by four rows is unclear.
- Guiding points and prompts are not clearly separated into distinct table cells.
  > 💡 Condense content into a clear two-column, four-row table that fits on one page.

### ✅ `116e791e…` — score 7/10
- PDF exceeds the required one-page length.
- Text claims one-page PDF but delivered file is two pages.
  > 💡 Condense formatting and content to ensure the PDF fits on a single page.

### ❌ `dd724c67…` — score 4/10
- Facility list is incomplete and omits most Long Island hospitals and all rehabilitation facilities.
- TFU reference lacks complete condition list and exact CMS-specified follow-up timeframes.
- Content relies on disclaimers instead of validated CMS PY 2025 methodology details.
  > 💡 Expand the facility list comprehensively and align TFU guidance exactly with CMS PY 2025 specifications.

### ❌ `7151c60a…` — score 3/10
- Fax cover sheet lacks sender/recipient fields, checkboxes, date, subject, and page count.
- Checklist missing required table, staff initials, dates sent/received, and internal-only notation.
- Both documents lack company logo and checklist lacks page numbers and two-page structure.
  > 💡 Revise both Word documents to include all specified fields, tables, logos, and formatting requirements.

### ❌ `90edba97…` — score 3/10
- Did not enter any patient lab results from the provided reports.
- Failed to document required monthly medication or treatment changes.
- Output contradicts task by claiming missing lab data.
  > 💡 Populate all patient labs and protocol-driven treatment changes exactly as instructed using the provided reports.

### ✅ `91060ff0…` — score 7/10
- No references or citations to sources are included on the poster.
- Visual elements like icons, tables, or product comparisons are minimal or absent.
- OTC treatment section lacks specific product examples or concentrations.
  > 💡 Add a references section and simple visuals to strengthen credibility and reader engagement.

### ✅ `8384083a…` — score 6/10
- DOCX file lacks the required medication table and calculation details.
- Miebo days’ supply calculation is incorrect; it should be approximately 7.5 days.
- Several table headers and medication names are truncated or misspelled.
  > 💡 Correct calculation errors, fix formatting issues, and ensure both PDF and DOCX contain complete tables.

### ✅ `045aba2e…` — score 7/10
- No explicit citations or references to specific California law sections are included.
- Weekly/monthly checklist content preview is truncated, limiting verification.
- Operational manual and staff role definitions were not provided.
  > 💡 Add lawbook section citations and confirm all checklist pages are fully verifiable PDFs.

### ❌ `f2986c1f…` — score 3/10
- Medications not identified; all fields set to NA without attempting Drugs.com lookup.
- No evidence of image review or extraction of pill markings, color, or shape.
- MedlinePlus counseling links are missing despite being required.
  > 💡 Review the image, identify each pill via Drugs.com, and fully populate the spreadsheet including MedlinePlus links.

### ❌ `ffed32d8…` — score 4/10
- Comparative table lacks drug-level cost, reimbursement, and revenue details.
- No evidence Wholesale Price or Reimbursement PDFs were used.
- Revenue difference reported as $0.00 without supporting calculations.
  > 💡 Include detailed per-drug calculations using provided pricing files and present a complete comparative table.

### ✅ `a69be28f…` — score 8/10
- Text response lacks summarized insights on top-performing fits by region.
- No explicit confirmation that revenue metrics were visualized alongside units.
  > 💡 Add a brief written summary highlighting top fits and explicitly reference revenue charts.

### ✅ `788d2bc6…` — score 7/10
- Slides appear largely text-only with no clear visual elements or creative samples.
- Use of open-source images is not evidenced or cited anywhere.
- Some core services like A+ Content and Brand Story are not clearly detailed.
  > 💡 Add visual examples and explicitly document open-source imagery while expanding creative service slides.

### ✅ `74ed1dc7…` — score 9/10
- Bulk order is renamed rather than clearly added as a distinct new type.
  > 💡 Add a concise table mapping each order type to reporting impacts and ownership.

### ✅ `69a8ef86…` — score 8/10
- External guidelines preview shows a truncated sentence, suggesting possible formatting or completeness issue.
  > 💡 Review the external RA guidelines to ensure all requirements and labeling details are complete and clearly formatted.

### ✅ `ab81b076…` — score 9/10
- Visual guidance is limited to a single damage example image.
  > 💡 Add one or two annotated visuals for stock versus critical order workflows.

### ✅ `7ed932dd…` — score 5/10
- Delivered days of inventory factoring upcoming shipments are not included.
- No visual highlighting for rounded pallets or earlier delivery dates.
- Workbook lacks calculations or references to upcoming shipments and conversion ratios.
  > 💡 Add delivered inventory calculations using upcoming shipments and apply required Excel highlights.

### ❌ `105f8ad0…` — score 4/10
- No documented competitor research, sources, or September 2025 MSRPs included.
- Excel model lacks competitor benchmarks and price-per-ounce calculations by size and concentration.
- Sheet contains blank columns and unclear structure, reducing professional usability.
  > 💡 Add documented competitor pricing data, clear benchmark calculations, and a clean, well-labeled Excel structure.

### ❌ `b57efde3…` — score 3/10
- No companies identified; prospect list contains zero leads.
- Official Aqua Nor exhibitor list was not reviewed as required.
- Deliverable is a template rather than completed research findings.
  > 💡 Research Aqua Nor exhibitors and populate the spreadsheet with qualified AUV, ROV, and UC companies.

### ❌ `15d37511…` — score 3/10
- Spreadsheet lacks required pricing, cost, margin, and gross margin calculations.
- Tiered pricing and consumables revenue are not quantified or applied.
- Deliverable relies on missing inputs instead of reference pricing email data.
  > 💡 Populate the spreadsheet with actual pricing email data and complete all margin calculations.

### ❌ `bb863dd9…` — score 3/10
- Quotation lacks itemized modules with quantities, prices, lead times, and shelf life.
- No article numbers or total pricing per module are included.
- Excel layout has missing column headers and incomplete commercial details.
  > 💡 Populate the Excel with full module line items per IEHK 2017 using internal pricing data.

### ✅ `fe0d3941…` — score 8/10
- Survey does not specify target sample size of over one hundred participants.
- Extra DOCX file was produced though not explicitly requested.
  > 💡 Add a brief note indicating intended survey sample size and distribution method.

### ❌ `6a900a40…` — score 3/10
- Transport options and EXW+freight grand totals are missing.
- Unit price and delivery time do not reflect internal reference table.
- Mandatory remarks, transit times, and red freight validity note are absent.
  > 💡 Revise the Excel to add correct pricing, lead times, transport options with totals, and all required remarks.

### ✅ `9efbcd35…` — score 6/10
- Lacks explicit MSCI index performance data or figures for Q1 2025.
- No citations or references to MSCI, WSJ, FT, or research sources.
- Text is high-level and generic, with limited quantitative or factual detail.
  > 💡 Add MSCI performance metrics and cite specific news and research sources throughout the document.

### ❌ `1d4672c8…` — score 4/10
- Used proxy return data instead of required MSCI-sourced data.
- Excel workbook lacks a correlation matrix tab.
- Correlation analysis conclusions rely on non-authoritative placeholder data.
  > 💡 Rebuild analysis using official MSCI monthly returns and include a dedicated correlation matrix worksheet.

### ❌ `4de6a529…` — score 4/10
- Currency asset class section is entirely missing from the deliverable.
- Many required sub-asset classes and change indicators are missing or incomplete.
- Tables show formatting errors with truncated headers and broken one-sentence rationales.
  > 💡 Rebuild complete tables covering all required asset classes with clean formatting and full change indicators.

### ✅ `4c4dc603…` — score 6/10
- PDF exceeds one page requirement.
- Salient numbers like target raise, IRR, token supply, and price are missing.
- Key team members lack names and specific profiles.
  > 💡 Condense to one page and add concrete fund metrics and named team profiles.

### ✅ `bb499d9c…` — score 5/10
- Process lacks detailed step-by-step procedures required for Level 1 sales operations.
- Issuer and investor process models lack stage-by-stage textual breakdown and issuer group customization.
- Document does not demonstrate use of CEO brief or external industry best-practice research.
  > 💡 Expand each process with detailed stages, customization by segment, and explicit alignment to CEO brief and industry standards.

### ✅ `5349dd7b…` — score 7/10
- Historical rate increases were estimated, not researched via search engines as required.
- UPS and FedEx flat rate offerings may be inaccurately represented as standard flat rate boxes.
- Business rate eligibility and confirmation are not explicitly documented.
  > 💡 Replace estimates with sourced rate data and validate true flat rate programs and business pricing.

### ✅ `a4a9195c…` — score 8/10
- No revision history, document control, or approval section included.
- ESD grounding verification and audit frequency are not defined.
  > 💡 Add document control details and specify ESD control verification and audit intervals.

### ✅ `552b7dd0…` — score 5/10
- No evidence Excel incident data was analyzed or referenced.
- Presentation content lacks specific figures for cost and resolution times.
- Summary slide takeaways and recommendations are not verifiably data-driven.
  > 💡 Include explicit data tables, calculated metrics, and cite the source Excel analysis in the presentation.

### ❌ `76418a2c…` — score 3/10
- Spreadsheet not populated from Pick Tickets or Shipping Parameters.
- Column names and structure do not match the Blank Daily Shipment Manifest.
- Weights, methods, costs, and savings contain placeholders or are missing.
  > 💡 Recreate the manifest using the provided files with correct columns and calculated shipping methods and savings.

### ❌ `0e386e32…` — score 4/10
- ZIP file size suggests missing or minimal code content.
- No evidence of actual smart contract, frontend, or relayer implementations.
- Privacy logic description is incomplete and not reflected in deliverables.
  > 💡 Provide a fully populated codebase with verifiable implementations and detailed documentation.

### ❌ `7de33b48…` — score 4/10
- Zip contents cannot be verified; no file preview or listing provided.
- Archive size seems too small for utility, tests, and documentation.
- Required files and tests are not explicitly confirmed present.
  > 💡 Provide a file manifest and expand the ZIP to include verified component, tests, and README.

### ❌ `4122f866…` — score 3/10
- ZIP size is unrealistically small for Terraform, Lambda code, and README.
- No actual Terraform, Lambda, or README contents are verifiable.
- Output describes intent but provides no inspectable implementation.
  > 💡 Include complete, inspectable Terraform files, Lambda code, and README within the ZIP.

### ✅ `2c249e0f…` — score 8/10
- Resumable upload mechanics lack explicit part or presigned URL operations.
- Insight data prioritization is described but not strictly enforced via API fields.
  > 💡 Add explicit multipart upload part endpoints and a required priority field for insight data.

## Failure Analysis

The dominant hard-failure mode was brittle spreadsheet parsing, not general inability to finish tasks. Six of the nine errors were direct schema/header lookup failures in code-generated workbook pipelines: b7a5912e expected a Total days column, 5f6c57dd expected Branch, a0552909 could not find Request Sent Date, f841ddcf expected Actual Ship Date, d7cfae6f selected a nonexistent fixed header set, and 11dcc268 could not find an Item # field. The remaining three errors were basic code robustness issues rather than task-domain errors: a73fbc98 called lower on a NaN, 19403010 had a nonlocal syntax mistake, and 854f3814 failed on an unterminated triple-quoted string. This explains why Wholesale Trade, which had many workbook-heavy sales/order tasks, was the weakest sector overall and accounted for a disproportionate share of execution failures.

A second pattern is soft failure: files were produced, but the core analytic content was missing or wrong. This was common in spreadsheet and data-population work across sectors. Examples include 7b08cd4d, where the PnL workbook was produced after retry but key sheets were empty; 3f821c2d, where required inventory formulas and benchmark tables were missing; b39a5aa7, where projection outputs were blank; 8079e27d, where the S&P 500 workbook contained no populated company data; 02aa1805, where the Illinois well workbook had zero extracted wells; and 90edba97, where required lab results were not entered despite a completed file. These are especially concentrated in Wholesale Trade, Finance and Insurance, Manufacturing operations/planning, and health-care administration tasks that depended on exact extraction, reconciliation, or formula logic.

A third pattern is deliverable-type mismatch: the system was much stronger on bounded policy, memo, checklist, and legal/compliance documents than on final rich-media, code, or externally researched artifacts. Government and Retail illustrate the strong side, with high-QA, low-error document tasks such as a328feea, 7bbfcfe9, a95a5829, 8f9e8bcd, and 02314fc6. By contrast, media/code tasks often returned planning documents, placeholders, or minimally populated archives instead of the requested finished artifact: e222075d, c94452e4, 75401f7c, and a941b6d8 in Film and Video Editors; 0e386e32 and 4122f866 in Software Developers; and several externally sourced research tasks such as a10ec48c, 0818571f, b57efde3, and 15d37511. In short, narrative synthesis held up better than artifact execution, source-grounded research, or tool-verified implementation.

Retries improved surface completion but rarely repaired underlying logic. All 9 hard failures had already been retried and still failed, so the retry loop was not curing schema or code bugs. Even when retries converted errors into successes, quality often stayed low: 7b08cd4d scored 2 after retry, c44e9b62 scored 3, ee09d943 scored 4, e996036e scored 4, 327fbc21 scored 4, and b39a5aa7 scored 4. Latency also did not buy quality: long-running tasks such as a941b6d8 at about 34 seconds, c7d83f01 at about 32 seconds, and 05389f78 at about 31.7 seconds still had QA from 3 to 5, while fast structured-doc tasks such as a328feea at about 11.6 seconds and 7bbfcfe9 at about 10.9 seconds scored 9. The main risk driver was task structure and verification burden, not runtime.

## Recommendations

First, harden the spreadsheet/code execution layer before changing prompting. Add a mandatory schema-discovery pass for every tabular task: normalize headers, scan multiple possible header rows, support fuzzy column matching, and coerce nulls before string methods. That directly targets the error signatures in b7a5912e, 5f6c57dd, a0552909, f841ddcf, d7cfae6f, 11dcc268, and a73fbc98. Pair that with a pre-submit lint/compile step for generated scripts so syntax issues like 19403010 and 854f3814 are caught before execution. Retries should branch on exception class; a KeyError should trigger header reinspection and remapping, not the same plan rerun.

Second, route tasks by artifact type and re-enable stronger planning for the difficult classes. This no-reasoning condition appears adequate for bounded prose deliverables, but weaker for multi-step spreadsheet reconciliation, external-data research, media rendering, and code packaging. A selective configuration rule would likely help: keep the current fast path for policy/checklist/memo work where it already excels, as seen in a328feea, 7bbfcfe9, a95a5829, and 02314fc6, but switch to a reasoning-enabled or tool-supervised path when prompts request formulas, pivots, reconciliations, public-data harvesting, final MP4/WAV output, or ZIP code delivery. The weak clusters in 7b08cd4d, 3f821c2d, 8079e27d, e222075d, c94452e4, 75401f7c, 0e386e32, and 4122f866 all fit that profile.

Third, tighten acceptance criteria so low-substance outputs are treated as failures, not successes. Add artifact-specific QA gates before a task is marked complete: for spreadsheets, require nonblank formulas/tables on required tabs and row-count sanity checks; for documents, verify page count, required sections, signatures, and explicit tables; for presentations, emit a slide-text export or thumbnails so content is inspectable; for media, validate duration, resolution, codec, and non-silent audio; for ZIP/code tasks, require a manifest, minimum file-count/size thresholds, and if possible test execution. That would have blocked soft-failure completions like 7b08cd4d, b39a5aa7, 75401f7c, a941b6d8, 0e386e32, and 4122f866 from being counted as acceptable deliverables.

Fourth, improve retrieval grounding and response discipline for research-heavy sectors. Many low-QA tasks failed because the system produced placeholders, illustrative examples, or uncited generalities instead of sourced outputs: a10ec48c, 0e4fe8cd, 8079e27d, 02aa1805, 0818571f, b57efde3, and 15d37511. For those task classes, require a source appendix with URLs or dataset notes, and add prompt instructions that the text response must summarize actual findings rather than restate intent. That would also address the repeated QA complaint seen in many otherwise successful tasks where the response described the planned deliverable instead of the completed work. Combined with sector-specific templates for wholesale quoting, financial modeling, and property research, this should raise true completion quality much more than further generic retries.

## Deliverable Files

- `83d10b06…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `7b08cd4d…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `7d7fc9a7…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `43dc9778…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `ee09d943…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `f84ea6ac…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a328feea…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `27e8912c…` (Government): 6 file(s)
- `17111c03…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `c44e9b62…` (Government): 3 file(s)
- `99ac6944…` (Information): 4 file(s)
- `f9a1c16c…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `38889c3b…` (Information): 6 file(s)
- `ff85ee58…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `4b894ae3…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `1b1ade2d…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `93b336f3…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `15ddd28d…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `24d1e93f…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `05389f78…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `575f8679…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a74ead3b…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `bbe0a93b…` (Government): 6 file(s)
- `85d95ce5…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `76d10872…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `36d567ba…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `7bbfcfe9…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `2696757c…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `dfb4e0cd…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `4c18ebae…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `cebf301e…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `c2e8f271…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `2ea2e5b5…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `c357f0e2…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `a45bc83b…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 4 file(s)
- `a10ec48c…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `fccaa4a1…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `f5d428fd…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 8 file(s)
- `2fa8e956…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `0e4fe8cd…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `a0ef404e…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `aa071045…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `476db143…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `61f546a8…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `f3351922…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `61717508…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `0ed38524…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `87da214f…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `d025a41c…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `401a07f1…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `afe56d05…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `9a8c8e28…` (Information): 6 file(s)
- `3a4c347c…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `ec2fccc9…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `8c8fc328…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `e222075d…` (Information): 5 file(s)
- `c94452e4…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `75401f7c…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `a941b6d8…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `8079e27d…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `e21cd746…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `9e8607e7…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `c7d83f01…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `46b34f78…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `a1963a68…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `b39a5aa7…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `b78fd844…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `4520f882…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `ec591973…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `62f04c2f…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `3f821c2d…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `e996036e…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `327fbc21…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `6dcae3f5…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `1aecc095…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `0353ee0c…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `40a8c4b1…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `4d1a8410…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `8c823e32…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `eb54f575…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `11e1b169…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `a95a5829…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `22c0809b…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `bf68f2ad…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `efca245f…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `9e39df84…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `68d8d901…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `1752cb53…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `bd72994f…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `211d0093…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `d4525420…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `45c6237b…` (Retail Trade): 8 file(s)
- `cecac8f9…` (Retail Trade): 5 file(s)
- `8f9e8bcd…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `0fad6023…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `02314fc6…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `4d61a19a…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `6436ff9e…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `8a7b6fca…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `40a99a31…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `b9665ca1…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `c6269101…` (Manufacturing): 5 file(s)
- `be830ca0…` (Manufacturing): 6 file(s)
- `cd9efc18…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `a97369c7…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `3f625cb2…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `aad21e4c…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `8314d1b1…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `5e2b6aab…` (Manufacturing): 10 file(s)
- `46fc494e…` (Manufacturing): 8 file(s)
- `3940b7e7…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `8077e700…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `5a2d70da…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `74d6e8b0…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `81db15ff…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `61b0946a…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `61e7b9c6…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `c9bf9801…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 4 file(s)
- `f1be6436…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 5 file(s)
- `41f6ef59…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `6d2c8e55…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 12 file(s)
- `4b98ccce…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `60221cd0…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `ef8719da…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `3baa0009…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `5d0feb24…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `6974adea…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `1a78e076…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `1b9ec237…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `0112fc9b…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `772e7524…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `e6429658…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `b5d2e6f1…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `47ef842d…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `1137e2bb…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `c3525d4d…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `9a0d8d36…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `664a42e5…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `feb5eefc…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `3600de06…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `c657103b…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `ae0c1093…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `f9f82549…` (Retail Trade): 9 file(s)
- `57b2cdf2…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `84322284…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `a46d5cd2…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `6241e678…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `e14e32ba…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `b1a79ce1…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `e4f664ea…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `a079d38f…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `02aa1805…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `fd6129bd…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `ce864f41…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `58ac1cc5…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 5 file(s)
- `3c19c6d1…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `a99d85fc…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `55ddb773…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `1e5a1d7f…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `0419f1c3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `ed2bc14c…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `46bc7238…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 9 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): 2 file(s)
- `6074bba3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 4 file(s)
- `5ad0c554…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `11593a50…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 6 file(s)
- `94925f49…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 10 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): 2 file(s)
- `650adcb1…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `01d7e53e…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `0ec25916…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `116e791e…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `dd724c67…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `7151c60a…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `90edba97…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `91060ff0…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `8384083a…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `045aba2e…` (Retail Trade): 6 file(s)
- `f2986c1f…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `ffed32d8…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `b3573f20…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `a69be28f…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `788d2bc6…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `74ed1dc7…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `69a8ef86…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `ab81b076…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `7ed932dd…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `105f8ad0…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `b57efde3…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `15d37511…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `bb863dd9…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `fe0d3941…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `6a900a40…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `9efbcd35…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `1d4672c8…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `4de6a529…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `4c4dc603…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `bb499d9c…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `5349dd7b…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `a4a9195c…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `552b7dd0…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `76418a2c…` (Manufacturing): 1 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): 1 file(s)
- `2c249e0f…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
