# Experiment Report: GPT-5.2 Chat Elicit v2 — CONFIDENCE safety + timeout 720s (Full 220)

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| **Experiment ID** | `exp007_GPT52Chat_token16k_elicit_v2` |
| **Condition** | Elicit v2 16k |
| **Model** | gpt-5.2-chat |
| **Execution Mode** | subprocess |
| **Date** | 2026-03-02 |
| **Duration** | 114m 8s |
| **Generated At** | 2026-03-02T21:36:19.692465+00:00 |
| 🤗 HF Dataset | [exp007_GPT52Chat_token16k_elicit_v2](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp007_GPT52Chat_token16k_elicit_v2) |
| 📊 Self-Report | [self_report.json](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp007_GPT52Chat_token16k_elicit_v2/blob/main/self_report.json) |
| 📊 Grading | ⏳ Awaiting (`scores.json`) |

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

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

This run evaluated GPT-5.2 Chat in the Elicit v2 16k condition, executed in subprocess mode with CONFIDENCE safety enabled and a 720s timeout. Across 220 total tasks, the system completed 209 successfully, for a 95.0% task completion rate, with 11 errors and 27 retried tasks. Average end-to-end latency was 23,231 ms.

From an execution standpoint, the run shows strong completion reliability. A 95% completion rate indicates the model generally produced deliverables successfully, and the retry count suggests the pipeline was able to recover a meaningful share of initially unstable executions. The remaining 11 errors indicate some residual failure modes, but they did not materially reduce overall throughput.

On self-assessed confidence / LLM-evaluated quality, the average Self-QA score was 6.13/10, with a broad range from 2 to 9. That pattern indicates deliverables were often usable and coherent, but quality was uneven: successful completion did not always correspond to high-confidence output. In practical terms, file generation quality appears operationally reliable, while content quality and confidence were more variable.

At the sector level, Government was the clearest high-performing segment, combining 25/25 success with the highest average Self-QA score (7.2/10). Information also achieved 25/25 success, but with the lowest sector QA among fully successful groups (5.5/10) and the highest latency. Wholesale Trade was the main completion outlier at 21/25 success, while Retail Trade delivered relatively strong LLM-evaluated quality (6.8/10) despite a smaller task count.

## Key Metrics

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Tasks | 220 |
| Success | 209 (95.0%) |
| Errors | 11 |
| Retried Tasks | 27 |
| Avg QA Score | 6.13/10 |
| Min QA Score | 2/10 |
| Max QA Score | 9/10 |
| Avg Latency | 23,231ms |
| Max Latency | 347,660ms |
| Total LLM Time | 5110s |

## File Generation

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Tasks requiring files | 185 |
| Successfully generated | 175 (94.6%) |
| Failed → dummy created | 10 |

### Resume Rounds

| Round | Attempted | Recovered | Still Failed |
|-------|-----------|-----------|--------------|
| 1 | 27 | 16 | 11 |

## Quality Analysis

The Self-QA distribution suggests a mid-band quality profile rather than consistently high confidence. With an overall average of 6.13/10 and observed scores spanning 2 to 9, the model appears to have produced a mix of solid and only moderately reliable outputs. This spread is important for deliverable file generation quality: many files were generated successfully, but the model's own evaluation implies that completeness, precision, or instruction adherence varied meaningfully across tasks.

Sector differences were pronounced. Government was the strongest combination of reliability and confidence, with perfect completion and the highest average QA (7.2/10), indicating both stable execution and stronger LLM-evaluated quality. Retail Trade also performed well on quality at 6.8/10 with 19/20 success, while Wholesale Trade showed a different profile: lower completion reliability (21/25) but still above-average QA at 6.5/10 on successful outputs. Finance, Health Care, Professional Services, and Information clustered in the mid-to-lower confidence range, mostly between 5.5 and 5.8, despite generally high completion rates.

Latency did not show a simple positive relationship with quality. Information had the highest average latency by a wide margin at 39,746 ms, yet its average QA was only 5.5/10, which argues against longer runtime translating into better deliverables. Government, by contrast, combined comparatively low latency (20,570 ms) with the highest QA, and Wholesale Trade combined the lowest latency (18,850 ms) with above-average quality on completed tasks. The clearest pattern is that slower tasks were not consistently better, and in at least one major sector they were worse by self-assessment.

No occupation-level breakdown was provided, so observations are limited to the sector aggregate. Within that limitation, the main technical takeaway is that completion reliability was strong across most sectors, but LLM-evaluated quality was uneven and sector-sensitive. Deliverable generation appears operationally dependable overall, while the confidence profile suggests follow-up attention is most warranted in slower, lower-confidence sectors such as Information and in lower-completion sectors such as Wholesale Trade.

## Sector Breakdown

| Sector | Tasks | Success | Success% | Avg QA | Avg Latency |
|--------|-------|---------|----------|--------|-------------|
| Finance and Insurance | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 5.83/10 | 21,040ms |
| Government | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 7.16/10 | 20,570ms |
| Health Care and Social Assistance | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 5.75/10 | 19,626ms |
| Information | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 5.52/10 | 39,746ms |
| Manufacturing | 25 | 23 | 92.0% | 6.09/10 | 24,216ms |
| Professional, Scientific, and Technical  | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 5.58/10 | 22,002ms |
| Real Estate and Rental and Leasing | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 6.12/10 | 21,325ms |
| Retail Trade | 20 | 19 | 95.0% | 6.79/10 | 21,325ms |
| Wholesale Trade | 25 | 21 | 84.0% | 6.48/10 | 18,850ms |

## Task Results

| # | Task ID | Sector | Occupation | Status | Retry | Files | QA Score | Latency |
|---|---------|--------|------------|--------|-------|-------|----------|---------|
| 1 | `83d10b06…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 21158ms |
| 2 | `7b08cd4d…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 2 | 2/10 | 15694ms |
| 3 | `7d7fc9a7…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 7 | 6/10 | 23763ms |
| 4 | `43dc9778…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 17 | 5/10 | 20220ms |
| 5 | `ee09d943…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 18 | 4/10 | 16578ms |
| 6 | `f84ea6ac…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 21290ms |
| 7 | `a328feea…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 12083ms |
| 8 | `27e8912c…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 6 | 7/10 | 19271ms |
| 9 | `17111c03…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 4 | 8/10 | 25232ms |
| 10 | `c44e9b62…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 7 | 6/10 | 21703ms |
| 11 | `99ac6944…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 5 | 5/10 | 24348ms |
| 12 | `f9a1c16c…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 23939ms |
| 13 | `38889c3b…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 347660ms |
| 14 | `ff85ee58…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 3/10 | 26284ms |
| 15 | `4b894ae3…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 17232ms |
| 16 | `1b1ade2d…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 39577ms |
| 17 | `93b336f3…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 28770ms |
| 18 | `15ddd28d…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 34453ms |
| 19 | `24d1e93f…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 24989ms |
| 20 | `05389f78…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 34844ms |
| 21 | `575f8679…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 20136ms |
| 22 | `a74ead3b…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 16236ms |
| 23 | `bbe0a93b…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 6 | 7/10 | 22616ms |
| 24 | `85d95ce5…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 5 | 3/10 | 35527ms |
| 25 | `76d10872…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 6 | 7/10 | 19556ms |
| 26 | `36d567ba…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 17967ms |
| 27 | `7bbfcfe9…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 10260ms |
| 28 | `2696757c…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 15333ms |
| 29 | `dfb4e0cd…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 15426ms |
| 30 | `4c18ebae…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 20128ms |
| 31 | `cebf301e…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 23077ms |
| 32 | `c2e8f271…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 22629ms |
| 33 | `2ea2e5b5…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 6 | 6/10 | 20451ms |
| 34 | `c357f0e2…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 18691ms |
| 35 | `a45bc83b…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 5 | 7/10 | 22462ms |
| 36 | `a10ec48c…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 18180ms |
| 37 | `fccaa4a1…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 18641ms |
| 38 | `f5d428fd…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 9 | 5/10 | 21682ms |
| 39 | `2fa8e956…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 17077ms |
| 40 | `0e4fe8cd…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 19806ms |
| 41 | `a0ef404e…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 19986ms |
| 42 | `b7a5912e…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 16652ms |
| 43 | `aa071045…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 7/10 | 16427ms |
| 44 | `476db143…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 6 | 8/10 | 15130ms |
| 45 | `61f546a8…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 20103ms |
| 46 | `f3351922…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 16739ms |
| 47 | `61717508…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 5 | 4/10 | 28955ms |
| 48 | `0ed38524…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 15223ms |
| 49 | `87da214f…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 17351ms |
| 50 | `d025a41c…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 18291ms |
| 51 | `401a07f1…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 30613ms |
| 52 | `afe56d05…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 43615ms |
| 53 | `9a8c8e28…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 6 | 5/10 | 22739ms |
| 54 | `3a4c347c…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 21926ms |
| 55 | `ec2fccc9…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 35576ms |
| 56 | `8c8fc328…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 15283ms |
| 57 | `e222075d…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 6 | 4/10 | 27788ms |
| 58 | `c94452e4…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 3/10 | 26597ms |
| 59 | `75401f7c…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 3/10 | 20151ms |
| 60 | `a941b6d8…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 3/10 | 26773ms |
| 61 | `8079e27d…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 17576ms |
| 62 | `e21cd746…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 21992ms |
| 63 | `9e8607e7…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 27565ms |
| 64 | `c7d83f01…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 2 | 2/10 | 28781ms |
| 65 | `46b34f78…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 23214ms |
| 66 | `a1963a68…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 25330ms |
| 67 | `5f6c57dd…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 17194ms |
| 68 | `b39a5aa7…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 3/10 | 19076ms |
| 69 | `b78fd844…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 24183ms |
| 70 | `4520f882…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 18309ms |
| 71 | `ec591973…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 14096ms |
| 72 | `62f04c2f…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 18945ms |
| 73 | `3f821c2d…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 19118ms |
| 74 | `e996036e…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 18676ms |
| 75 | `327fbc21…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 17357ms |
| 76 | `6dcae3f5…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 19600ms |
| 77 | `1aecc095…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 23077ms |
| 78 | `0353ee0c…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 3/10 | 23299ms |
| 79 | `40a8c4b1…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 15889ms |
| 80 | `4d1a8410…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 11 | 3/10 | 16275ms |
| 81 | `8c823e32…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 28642ms |
| 82 | `eb54f575…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 25498ms |
| 83 | `11e1b169…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 19917ms |
| 84 | `a95a5829…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 21870ms |
| 85 | `22c0809b…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 18337ms |
| 86 | `bf68f2ad…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 6/10 | 18827ms |
| 87 | `efca245f…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 17844ms |
| 88 | `9e39df84…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 21863ms |
| 89 | `68d8d901…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 18685ms |
| 90 | `1752cb53…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 14812ms |
| 91 | `bd72994f…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 31755ms |
| 92 | `211d0093…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 18815ms |
| 93 | `d4525420…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 12964ms |
| 94 | `45c6237b…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 5/10 | 25922ms |
| 95 | `cecac8f9…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 7 | 7/10 | 38269ms |
| 96 | `8f9e8bcd…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 16805ms |
| 97 | `0fad6023…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 25239ms |
| 98 | `02314fc6…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 18901ms |
| 99 | `4d61a19a…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 8/10 | 20297ms |
| 100 | `6436ff9e…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 16309ms |
| 101 | `8a7b6fca…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 18184ms |
| 102 | `40a99a31…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 23820ms |
| 103 | `b9665ca1…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 27832ms |
| 104 | `c6269101…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 20984ms |
| 105 | `be830ca0…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 8 | 6/10 | 31940ms |
| 106 | `cd9efc18…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 22831ms |
| 107 | `a97369c7…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 26590ms |
| 108 | `3f625cb2…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 20715ms |
| 109 | `aad21e4c…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 25348ms |
| 110 | `8314d1b1…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 25529ms |
| 111 | `5e2b6aab…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 24052ms |
| 112 | `46fc494e…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 6 | 3/10 | 24928ms |
| 113 | `3940b7e7…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 24808ms |
| 114 | `8077e700…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 27862ms |
| 115 | `5a2d70da…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 6/10 | 22383ms |
| 116 | `74d6e8b0…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 23716ms |
| 117 | `81db15ff…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 13619ms |
| 118 | `61b0946a…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 26599ms |
| 119 | `61e7b9c6…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 14558ms |
| 120 | `c9bf9801…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 20155ms |
| 121 | `f1be6436…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 5 | 3/10 | 22064ms |
| 122 | `41f6ef59…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 15254ms |
| 123 | `a0552909…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 19905ms |
| 124 | `6d2c8e55…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 13 | 7/10 | 22092ms |
| 125 | `4b98ccce…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 7 | 8/10 | 23883ms |
| 126 | `60221cd0…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 28406ms |
| 127 | `ef8719da…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 28858ms |
| 128 | `3baa0009…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 26280ms |
| 129 | `5d0feb24…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 40819ms |
| 130 | `6974adea…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 8 | 6/10 | 47921ms |
| 131 | `1a78e076…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 32477ms |
| 132 | `1b9ec237…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 18200ms |
| 133 | `0112fc9b…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 19476ms |
| 134 | `772e7524…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 17088ms |
| 135 | `e6429658…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 26564ms |
| 136 | `b5d2e6f1…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 15960ms |
| 137 | `f841ddcf…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 18804ms |
| 138 | `47ef842d…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 18419ms |
| 139 | `1137e2bb…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 15271ms |
| 140 | `c3525d4d…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 20766ms |
| 141 | `9a0d8d36…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 21238ms |
| 142 | `664a42e5…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 18693ms |
| 143 | `feb5eefc…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 23835ms |
| 144 | `3600de06…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 16016ms |
| 145 | `c657103b…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 20749ms |
| 146 | `ae0c1093…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 4 | 9/10 | 17359ms |
| 147 | `f9f82549…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | Yes | 9 | 7/10 | 18965ms |
| 148 | `57b2cdf2…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 4 | 8/10 | 22664ms |
| 149 | `84322284…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 5 | 9/10 | 26238ms |
| 150 | `a46d5cd2…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 18519ms |
| 151 | `6241e678…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 24702ms |
| 152 | `e14e32ba…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 24521ms |
| 153 | `b1a79ce1…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 21387ms |
| 154 | `e4f664ea…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 4 | 8/10 | 24421ms |
| 155 | `a079d38f…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 4/10 | 15806ms |
| 156 | `02aa1805…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 18009ms |
| 157 | `fd6129bd…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 23885ms |
| 158 | `ce864f41…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 20986ms |
| 159 | `58ac1cc5…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 8 | 9/10 | 40043ms |
| 160 | `3c19c6d1…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 5 | 7/10 | 25449ms |
| 161 | `a99d85fc…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 19384ms |
| 162 | `55ddb773…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 22426ms |
| 163 | `1e5a1d7f…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 14355ms |
| 164 | `0419f1c3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 19765ms |
| 165 | `ed2bc14c…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 22407ms |
| 166 | `46bc7238…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 8 | 6/10 | 18522ms |
| 167 | `2d06bc0a…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 21188ms |
| 168 | `fd3ad420…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 16648ms |
| 169 | `0818571f…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 13 | 5/10 | 23421ms |
| 170 | `6074bba3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 5 | 3/10 | 17712ms |
| 171 | `5ad0c554…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 23616ms |
| 172 | `11593a50…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 4 | 4/10 | 35892ms |
| 173 | `94925f49…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | Yes | 11 | 7/10 | 38678ms |
| 174 | `90f37ff3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 24145ms |
| 175 | `d3d255b2…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 31279ms |
| 176 | `403b9234…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 17114ms |
| 177 | `1bff4551…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 19936ms |
| 178 | `650adcb1…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 30131ms |
| 179 | `01d7e53e…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 20937ms |
| 180 | `a73fbc98…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | Yes | 5 | 6/10 | 19104ms |
| 181 | `0ec25916…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 14000ms |
| 182 | `116e791e…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 15675ms |
| 183 | `dd724c67…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 16122ms |
| 184 | `7151c60a…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 5 | 3/10 | 15741ms |
| 185 | `90edba97…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 6 | 3/10 | 15335ms |
| 186 | `91060ff0…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 23265ms |
| 187 | `8384083a…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 20751ms |
| 188 | `045aba2e…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 6 | 8/10 | 17541ms |
| 189 | `f2986c1f…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 13033ms |
| 190 | `ffed32d8…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 4 | 5/10 | 22882ms |
| 191 | `b3573f20…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 23552ms |
| 192 | `a69be28f…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 19 | 8/10 | 25026ms |
| 193 | `788d2bc6…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 21157ms |
| 194 | `74ed1dc7…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 21827ms |
| 195 | `69a8ef86…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 20507ms |
| 196 | `ab81b076…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 5 | 8/10 | 24238ms |
| 197 | `d7cfae6f…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 23240ms |
| 198 | `19403010…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 16180ms |
| 199 | `7ed932dd…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 24007ms |
| 200 | `105f8ad0…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 16038ms |
| 201 | `b57efde3…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 12644ms |
| 202 | `15d37511…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 16693ms |
| 203 | `bb863dd9…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 15649ms |
| 204 | `fe0d3941…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 5 | 8/10 | 18238ms |
| 205 | `6a900a40…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 6 | 7/10 | 14837ms |
| 206 | `9efbcd35…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 25363ms |
| 207 | `1d4672c8…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 5/10 | 17317ms |
| 208 | `4de6a529…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 20651ms |
| 209 | `4c4dc603…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 18474ms |
| 210 | `bb499d9c…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 23891ms |
| 211 | `5349dd7b…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 22094ms |
| 212 | `a4a9195c…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 24190ms |
| 213 | `552b7dd0…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 4 | 8/10 | 18552ms |
| 214 | `11dcc268…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 20763ms |
| 215 | `76418a2c…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 3/10 | 18356ms |
| 216 | `0e386e32…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 15261ms |
| 217 | `7de33b48…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 4/10 | 19447ms |
| 218 | `854f3814…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 13953ms |
| 219 | `4122f866…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 26498ms |
| 220 | `2c249e0f…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 2/10 | 20774ms |

## QA Issues

### ✅ `83d10b06…` — score 5/10
- Sample size of 68 not respected; nearly all 1516 rows are flagged as samples.
- Population_Analyzed.xlsx lacks the required 'Sample Size Calculation' second tab.
- Sampling criteria application is not evidenced or traceable per criterion.
  > 💡 Restrict samples to calculated size, document criterion coverage, and add sample size tab to Population file.

### ❌ `7b08cd4d…` — score 2/10
- Excel sheets contain no populated revenue or expense data.
- Expenses are not broken out by source or required categories.
- Net revenue, expenses, and income are all zero and incorrect.
  > 💡 Populate all sheets with calculated data from reference files and include full required breakdowns.

### ✅ `7d7fc9a7…` — score 6/10
- Text response is high-level and lacks specific reconciliation figures.
- No explicit confirmation that schedules tie to provided GL balances.
- Summary tab details and calculations are not demonstrated in the response.
  > 💡 Include explicit reconciliation totals and key figures from each worksheet in the narrative.

### ✅ `43dc9778…` — score 5/10
- No evidence the PDF contains a completed, filled Form 1040 with calculations.
- Required schedules like Schedule A, Schedule 1, and Schedule 8812 are not addressed.
- Text response describes intent and process rather than delivering tax return details.
  > 💡 Provide a completed 1040 PDF with all applicable schedules clearly prepared and referenced.

### ❌ `ee09d943…` — score 4/10
- Response mostly restates intent without demonstrating completed month-end updates.
- Produced many source files unnecessarily instead of only the consolidated deliverable.
- No evidence CFO-reserved tabs were excluded or TOC was updated.
  > 💡 Provide a completed workbook with verified tab updates, exclusions, and documented April changes only.

### ❌ `f84ea6ac…` — score 3/10
- The Word document lacks the required comparison table.
- No five academic articles or study details are included.
- Research findings and government implications are missing.
  > 💡 Populate the document with a one-page table summarizing five post-2020 public academic studies as specified.

### ✅ `27e8912c…` — score 7/10
- Organizational Action Items document lacks the required tracking table with specified columns.
- Checklist does not include a citation or link to the NIH source.
- Action Items document is missing employee and resolution tracking fields.
  > 💡 Add the required tables with all specified fields and include a clear NIH citation link.

### ✅ `17111c03…` — score 8/10
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing delivered memo content.
  > 💡 Summarize key memo points directly in the text response for completeness.

### ✅ `c44e9b62…` — score 6/10
- Text response lacks specific FTE numbers and confirmation of meeting the 4% reduction.
- Revised organizational chart summarizes reductions but does not visually show highlighted boxes.
- Briefing note alignment to all Budget Planning Principles is not demonstrated in the summary.
  > 💡 Explicitly quantify total FTE reductions and visually mark eliminated positions while summarizing principle alignment.

### ✅ `99ac6944…` — score 5/10
- Mixer lacks onboard compression, violating a core requirement.
- Mixer aux routing likely cannot provide two independent IEM mixes.
- Document shows placeholder text instead of actual retailer web links.
  > 💡 Select an analogue mixer with built-in compression and sufficient aux sends, and include real purchase links.

### ❌ `f9a1c16c…` — score 4/10
- PDF contains severe typos and garbled labels reducing professional readability.
- Input list is incorrect and incomplete, missing bass speech mic and misnumbered items.
- Stage plot lacks clear wedge numbering counterclockwise and accurate monitor placement.
  > 💡 Rebuild the stage plot with clean labels, correct inputs/outputs, and clear standardized layout before advancing.

### ✅ `38889c3b…` — score 6/10
- Exports are 32-bit float, not the required 24-bit float.
- Use of the provided drum reference track is not verifiable.
- Zip contents are not itemized to confirm all required stems.
  > 💡 Re-export 48kHz 24-bit float files and include clearly labeled, drum-aligned stems.

### ❌ `ff85ee58…` — score 3/10
- No final mixed WAV audio was produced.
- Saxophone was not actually resynced or edited in audio.
- Loudness and true-peak requirements were not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Render and deliver the final 24-bit 48 kHz WAV with resynced sax meeting all loudness specs.

### ❌ `4b894ae3…` — score 3/10
- Required edited stereo WAV mix was not delivered.
- Output provides an edit plan instead of performing actual audio edits.
- Final file name and format specification were not met.
  > 💡 Deliver the fully edited and mixed 48kHz/24-bit stereo WAV with corrected bass replacing the raw track.

### ✅ `93b336f3…` — score 6/10
- Detailed INR cost breakdown tables are missing despite stated savings.
- Assumed 49:51 ownership split without task justification.
- Document appears truncated with incomplete recommendations section.
  > 💡 Add complete INR cost tables, justify assumptions, and finish all sections clearly.

### ✅ `15ddd28d…` — score 8/10
- Immediate three-week bridge plan to prevent line stoppage is not explicitly detailed.
  > 💡 Add a clear week-by-week interim supply and risk mitigation plan for the next 30 days.

### ✅ `24d1e93f…` — score 6/10
- Underlying vendor quotes, tooling, and R&D values are not shown or traceable.
- Tooling amortization over first 100,000 sets is not explicitly calculated.
- Base versus top variant cost split is not detailed in calculations.
  > 💡 Add transparent input sections with variant-level costs, tooling amortization math, and upfront R&D values.

### ✅ `05389f78…` — score 5/10
- Missing INR-based cost calculations and quantitative comparison as required.
- Quotation reference file lacks numeric pricing, volumes, and tooling data.
- Comparative analysis remains largely qualitative despite explicit calculation requirement.
  > 💡 Obtain complete quotation data and redo the report with full INR calculations and comparisons.

### ✅ `a74ead3b…` — score 7/10
- Text response lacks session-specific objectives and key concepts.
- Alignment with Sessions 13 and 14 manual content is not demonstrated.
- Accessibility features and visual design choices are not described.
  > 💡 Include brief slide outlines referencing specific manual sections and accessibility features.

### ✅ `bbe0a93b…` — score 7/10
- Resource guide lacks required categories like transportation, clothing, and counseling.
- Follow-up tracking table headers are misformatted and unclear in both languages.
- Resource guide shows no evidence of an open web search or comprehensive coverage.
  > 💡 Expand the resource guide categories and fix table headers for clarity and completeness.

### ❌ `85d95ce5…` — score 3/10
- PDF is only 3 pages, not the required 8–15 pages.
- Incorrect and unrelated files included, referencing a different student name.
- Final PDF appears incomplete with missing required sections and fields.
  > 💡 Complete the full 8–15 page report using correct notes, template, and student-specific files only.

### ✅ `76d10872…` — score 7/10
- Text response is generic and does not summarize completed report contents.
- Unnecessary CONFIDENCE tag included in the response.
- Extra DOCX file produced though only PDF was requested.
  > 💡 Provide a brief completion summary and include only the required PDF deliverable.

### ✅ `36d567ba…` — score 8/10
- Topic 8 cites Uniform Guidance generally instead of a specific applicable 2 CFR Part 200 section.
  > 💡 Add a specific Uniform Guidance section citation to Topic 8 for clarity and compliance.

### ✅ `2696757c…` — score 8/10
- An extra DOCX file was produced despite the single PDF requirement.
- Test questions could more explicitly mirror the exact handbook obligation language.
  > 💡 Limit deliverables to one PDF and tighten question phrasing to mirror regulatory text.

### ✅ `dfb4e0cd…` — score 8/10
- Text response does not summarize key findings or number of flagged awards.
  > 💡 Add a brief summary of how many awards were identified as fast or slow spending.

### ✅ `4c18ebae…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes planned work instead of delivering investigative conclusions.
- An extra Excel file was produced without explanation or requirement.
- Text response lacks a concise summary of findings and suspicion basis.
  > 💡 Align the narrative response with completed deliverables and summarize key findings and conclusions.

### ✅ `cebf301e…` — score 8/10
- TOTP enrollment, recovery, and device change flows are not clearly specified.
- In-browser PDF generation approach and libraries are not explicitly defined.
  > 💡 Add brief sections detailing TOTP lifecycle handling and the chosen client-side PDF generation strategy.

### ✅ `c2e8f271…` — score 8/10
- Backend and database testing standards are not explicitly addressed.
- No explicit references or links to external style guides are included.
  > 💡 Add brief backend, database testing standards and reference adopted external style guides.

### ✅ `2ea2e5b5…` — score 6/10
- No explicit activity-to-segment classification tables are presented in the output.
- Strategic level definitions appear incomplete and not fully validated against requirements.
- Analysis narrative relies on presentation description rather than documented results.
  > 💡 Include explicit tables mapping each activity to margin impact, time sensitivity, and strategic level.

### ✅ `c357f0e2…` — score 6/10
- Output has only 79 test cases, below the requested 80–100 range.
- Generated file does not preserve exact template column headers.
- Viewer role is incorrectly allowed to promote ideas in test cases.
  > 💡 Align columns exactly to the template, correct role permissions, and add more test cases to reach scope.

### ✅ `a45bc83b…` — score 7/10
- Cloud Armor is inaccurately described as providing Layer 3 and Layer 4 DDoS protection.
- Proposed architecture summary contains an incomplete truncated sentence at the end.
- Diagram fidelity to official GCP icon style is not verifiable from content preview.
  > 💡 Correct the DDoS description, fix the truncated text, and validate diagram icon compliance.

### ❌ `a10ec48c…` — score 3/10
- Tables are missing; no restaurant rows or required columns are present.
- No restaurant data, links, hours, descriptions, directions, or categories included.
- No evidence of sourcing from Downtown Sarasota list or Google Maps.
  > 💡 Populate each cuisine section with complete tables containing verified restaurant entries and required details.

### ✅ `fccaa4a1…` — score 6/10
- Statue of Liberty image is a placeholder, not sourced from royalty-free or Google as required.
- Age requirement states 2–14, conflicting with the 16-year-old participant.
- Tour operator details lack explicit sourcing or references from TakeWalks.com.
  > 💡 Replace placeholder imagery, correct age requirements, and explicitly source tour details from TakeWalks.com.

### ✅ `f5d428fd…` — score 5/10
- PDF exceeds two-page requirement.
- Images are placeholders, not sourced royalty-free as required.
- Some destinations lack specific well-reviewed dining venues.
  > 💡 Condense to two pages, replace placeholders with sourced royalty-free images, and add specific dining recommendations.

### ❌ `2fa8e956…` — score 4/10
- Does not list all wineries within a one-hour drive as requested.
- Footer titled Napa Valley Wineries is missing from the document.
- Required font colors and Georgia formatting are not evidenced.
  > 💡 Clarify scope, add complete winery coverage, correct formatting, and include the specified footer.

### ✅ `0e4fe8cd…` — score 6/10
- June 4 itinerary is incomplete and lacks clear return-home logistics.
- Incorrect airport code used; Istanbul Airport should be IST, not ISL.
- Several service providers appear unverifiable or generic without confirmed sourcing.
  > 💡 Complete June 4 with verified return travel details and validate all locations, codes, and vendors.

### ✅ `aa071045…` — score 7/10
- Damage revenue totals do not reconcile with breakdown sums.
- Included input file “Damage list.xlsx” as produced deliverable unnecessarily.
- Service date year may be inconsistent with task context.
  > 💡 Recalculate revenues to reconcile totals and exclude source files from final deliverables.

### ✅ `476db143…` — score 8/10
- Email is generic and not personalized per resident.
- Extra DOCX files were produced beyond the requested PDFs.
- Tracking DOCX lacks detailed table content despite PDF being complete.
  > 💡 Personalize resident communications and confirm only requested file formats are delivered.

### ✅ `61f546a8…` — score 6/10
- Section 1 is organized by apartment instead of by vendor as required.
- M17 scheduled service dates list a duplicate 07/11/25 entry.
- Vendor-first scheduling rule is not explicitly demonstrated in Section 1.
  > 💡 Reformat Section 1 by vendor and correct scheduling details to clearly show compliance with guidelines.

### ✅ `f3351922…` — score 6/10
- Email content is truncated and ends mid-sentence without a proper closing.
- No signature block or contact information is included.
- Benefits section lacks key details like matching contributions and BRS distinctions.
  > 💡 Complete the email with a proper closing, signature, and expanded transition-specific TSP benefits.

### ❌ `61717508…` — score 4/10
- Training deck is only two pages, not the requested ~10 pages.
- Role-play PDF is one page and lacks depth for sustained role-play.
- Escalation process section is truncated and incomplete.
  > 💡 Expand both PDFs to full length with complete escalation steps and richer scenarios.

### ✅ `0ed38524…` — score 6/10
- District summary exceeds one-page requirement.
- Multiple typos and spelling errors reduce professionalism.
- Some district comments reference incorrect districts.
  > 💡 Condense content to one page and proofread carefully for accuracy and clarity.

### ✅ `87da214f…` — score 7/10
- Text response describes intent but omits actual findings and metrics.
- Executive summary of dollar impact and percentages is not shown.
- CONFIDENCE tag is nonstandard for professional deliverables.
  > 💡 Add a brief executive summary in text highlighting key financial impacts and conclusions.

### ✅ `d025a41c…` — score 6/10
- Case Feedback titles are not formatted in bold as required.
- One improved alternative statement is truncated and incomplete.
- Unrequested additional case files were produced beyond the specified deliverable.
  > 💡 Fix formatting, complete all text, and submit only the single requested Word document.

### ✅ `401a07f1…` — score 8/10
- Reference outlets are mentioned but explicit hyperlinks are not visible in the preview.
- The ending appears truncated in the preview, making completeness unclear.
  > 💡 Ensure visible hyperlinks and confirm the final paragraph and call to action are complete.

### ✅ `afe56d05…` — score 6/10
- Document appears significantly shorter than the required 2,200–2,300 words.
- Hyperlinks to external resources are referenced but not clearly embedded.
- Word document length and depth may not fully meet training guidance expectations.
  > 💡 Expand each section to meet the word count and embed explicit hyperlinks to cited resources.

### ✅ `9a8c8e28…` — score 5/10
- Quiz is far too short to adequately assess understanding or legal risk awareness.
- Framework guide lacks depth, WCAG 2.2 detail, and a proper bibliography.
- Checklist and guidance are overly minimal for day-to-day newsroom use.
  > 💡 Expand all three PDFs with deeper practical guidance, a longer quiz, and fuller legal and WCAG coverage.

### ✅ `3a4c347c…` — score 8/10
- Text response is generic and does not summarise key proposal details.
- Reference boilerplate file was redundantly re-produced.
- Page count compliance cannot be independently verified from preview.
  > 💡 Add a brief executive summary in the text response highlighting scope, countries, and budget.

### ✅ `ec2fccc9…` — score 6/10
- Secondary keywords list not clearly identifiable at article end.
- Pull quote and caption presence not explicitly verified.
- Word count appears uncertain against 1,500-word requirement.
  > 💡 Confirm missing elements and clearly label keywords, pull quote, and final word count.

### ✅ `8c8fc328…` — score 8/10
- Produced script content not previewed, preventing verification of timestamps and pacing.
- Age-specific language suitability cannot be confirmed from available preview.
- Broadcast compliance elements are not explicitly confirmed.
  > 💡 Include a brief summary confirming timestamps, duration, and age-appropriate tone.

### ❌ `e222075d…` — score 4/10
- No 30-second H.264 MP4 edit was delivered as required.
- Scratch voiceover track was not created or included.
- Stock footage and music links are placeholders, not direct preview URLs.
  > 💡 Deliver an actual 30-second MP4 with scratch VO and real stock preview links for full compliance.

### ❌ `c94452e4…` — score 3/10
- No 15-second H.264 MP4 video was delivered.
- No stock footage or music selections were provided or linked.
- Output replaced required execution with planning documents only.
  > 💡 Produce and deliver the actual edited 15-second MP4 using appropriate stock footage and music.

### ❌ `75401f7c…` — score 3/10
- Final MP4 showreel was not produced.
- Deliverable substitutes plans for required edited video.
- Output does not fulfill core editing and rendering requirement.
  > 💡 Render and deliver the complete 01:20 MP4 showreel meeting all technical and creative specifications.

### ❌ `a941b6d8…` — score 3/10
- No video file was created matching the base clip specifications.
- Required stabilization, masking, compositing, and effects were not actually executed.
- Deliverables are planning documents instead of the requested finished VFX shot.
  > 💡 Produce the actual composited video file fulfilling all technical and creative requirements.

### ❌ `8079e27d…` — score 4/10
- Data is explicitly illustrative and not sourced from publicly available real market data.
- Company names are placeholders rather than actual S&P 500 constituents.
- Sub-sector summary shows missing % of Index values, indicating incomplete calculations.
  > 💡 Replace placeholder data with real sourced S&P 500 company data and validate all aggregate calculations.

### ✅ `e21cd746…` — score 8/10
- Valuations and trading multiples lack source citations and explicit as-of dates.
- Several private company valuations are estimates without disclosed methodology.
- Public comparables include diversified carriers beyond pure last-mile exposure.
  > 💡 Add data sources, valuation dates, and a brief methodology note to strengthen client credibility.

### ❌ `c7d83f01…` — score 2/10
- No Python notebook or code implementing American option pricing methods was delivered.
- Only binomial visuals provided; finite differences and Monte Carlo are missing.
- Analysis, benchmarks, and production recommendations are absent.
  > 💡 Provide a complete, documented Python notebook implementing and comparing multiple American option pricing methodologies.

### ✅ `46b34f78…` — score 5/10
- No specific issuers, bond metrics, or quantitative analysis are provided.
- Market analysis lacks cited public data sources and H1 2025 forecasts.
- Document contains truncated sentences and generic strategy language.
  > 💡 Add issuer-specific bond data, sourced market statistics, and concrete trade recommendations.

### ✅ `a1963a68…` — score 6/10
- Future-proofing and sustainability pathways are insufficiently detailed or missing.
- Limited explicit data citations and source references supporting market and regulatory claims.
- Appendix lacks robust quantitative analysis or charts from public Korean sources.
  > 💡 Add a dedicated future-proofing slide with innovations, sustainability, and clearly cited supporting data.

### ❌ `b39a5aa7…` — score 3/10
- Future two-year projections with quarterly Y/Y growth are missing.
- Key assumptions not linked, causing zero values for major compensation types.
- Calculation detail is insufficient to audit pay type derivations.
  > 💡 Fully link assumptions to calculations and add quarterly projections with year-over-year growth.

### ✅ `b78fd844…` — score 8/10
- Text response summarizes intent rather than key findings, relying entirely on attached files.
  > 💡 Include a brief executive summary of conclusions directly in the text response.

### ✅ `4520f882…` — score 6/10
- Excel model content not demonstrated or previewed to verify CBA compliance.
- No evidence of CBA-based validation or conflict highlighting implemented.
- Payroll category totals by person are not shown or documented.
  > 💡 Include documentation or screenshots detailing formulas, validations, and sample payroll calculations tied to the CBA.

### ✅ `ec591973…` — score 6/10
- Text response is meta and lacks actual strategic content.
- Slide content cannot be verified against detailed channel differentiation requirements.
- No evidence the slide addresses all stated business challenges.
  > 💡 Include a brief summary of slide content or screenshots to enable content verification.

### ✅ `62f04c2f…` — score 7/10
- Excel form lacks required freight prepayment and restocking fee note.
- Excel form missing signature and date lines for sales rep, GM, and Sales Manager.
  > 💡 Revise the Excel form to add the missing notes and required signature sections.

### ✅ `e996036e…` — score 5/10
- Wholesale revenue and marketing allowance calculations do not align with stated margins and shipment assumptions.
- No cash flow timing analysis is shown beyond listing payment terms.
- Excel file lacks the required visual chart comparing scenario favorability.
  > 💡 Recalculate figures using correct shipment totals, add cash flow timing by quarter, and include a comparison chart.

### ❌ `6dcae3f5…` — score 4/10
- ACGME requirement thresholds and PGY achievement year analysis are missing.
- Benchmark averages and standard deviations by each PGY are not clearly calculated or shown.
- Excel contains unnamed columns and data inconsistencies reducing reliability.
  > 💡 Add PGY-specific benchmarks and ACGME requirement mapping, then clean columns and correct scope of flagged residents.

### ✅ `1aecc095…` — score 6/10
- Telehealth Roadmap lacks a Visio-style visual workflow and appears text-only.
- Telehealth Roadmap content is minimal and may not meet one-page visual requirement.
- An extra unrequested file was produced.
  > 💡 Add a true visual flow diagram to the Roadmap and remove unrequested files.

### ❌ `0353ee0c…` — score 3/10
- Presumptive conditions and locations are not exhaustively listed.
- Content relies on referrals to VA links instead of consolidating information.
- Document contradicts requirement to individually review provided links.
  > 💡 Populate the guide with complete condition, location, and date lists extracted from each reference link.

### ✅ `40a8c4b1…` — score 7/10
- Text response includes unnecessary role description and confidence tag.
- Produced files include reference documents not requested as deliverables.
- No explicit confirmation that holiday exclusions were applied.
  > 💡 Remove extraneous files and provide a concise confirmation of key scheduling constraints applied.

### ❌ `4d1a8410…` — score 3/10
- Master schedule lacks detailed interview rotations, breaks, tours, and room-by-room timing.
- Applicant itineraries omit exact times, interview order, breaks, lunch, and tours.
- Critical constraints for physician breaks and group tour sequencing are not addressed.
  > 💡 Provide a complete timed interview rotation table and detailed, time-specific applicant itineraries meeting all constraints.

### ✅ `8c823e32…` — score 8/10
- Text response is descriptive rather than summarizing key policy elements.
- Policy length is relatively brief for a comprehensive General Manual procedure.
  > 💡 Consider expanding operational guidance and adding an executive summary in the text response.

### ✅ `eb54f575…` — score 8/10
- Ballistics section lacks specific FBI test data citations.
- PDF is concise and may benefit from additional charts or tables.
  > 💡 Add cited FBI test results and a summary table to strengthen executive credibility.

### ✅ `11e1b169…` — score 8/10
- KRS 503.090 section lacks specific statutory elements and deadly force thresholds.
- Guide provides minimal patrol examples for applying legal standards in the field.
  > 💡 Add brief statutory elements and practical examples for use-of-force and search scenarios.

### ✅ `a95a5829…` — score 9/10
- Approval list omits the word "Chief" for Fiscal Services Unit in one section.
  > 💡 Standardize titles consistently across all approval and signature sections.

### ✅ `22c0809b…` — score 8/10
- Signature and Date Submitted section is not visible in the preview.
- Action Taken section text appears truncated mid-word in preview.
  > 💡 Verify final PDF includes a complete Action Taken section and a clear Signature and Date Submitted block.

### ✅ `bf68f2ad…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes intent instead of summarizing the actual catch-up plan.
- An extra capacity reference file is included without being requested.
- Summary content length and recommendations cannot be verified from the response.
  > 💡 Include a concise plan summary in the text and clearly justify all attached files.

### ✅ `efca245f…` — score 6/10
- Excel plans lack explicit daily Grill Guard production quantities despite requirement.
- Scenario 3 violates stated constraint against overtime and long-term second shifts.
- Open PO quantities and demand assumptions are not defined or sourced.

### ❌ `9e39df84…` — score 4/10
- Average Output and Total Output columns are empty and not automatically calculated.
- Dashboard lacks required PivotTables, charts, and week-selection data validation.
- Operator Output Data includes extra unnamed columns, breaking the required structured table.
  > 💡 Rebuild the workbook with clean tables, working formulas, PivotTables, charts, and validation per specifications.

### ✅ `68d8d901…` — score 7/10
- Text response does not summarize how the 250,000 lb target is achieved.
- No explicit four-week throughput or batch math is shown.
- Narrative repeats task intent rather than reporting completed analysis.
  > 💡 Add a brief executive summary with throughput calculations proving the four-week target is met.

### ✅ `bd72994f…` — score 6/10
- No specific luxury brand is identified for the 2025 resort collection.
- No evidence of using an official website or lookbook source.
- Slides lack imagery typically expected for styled looks.
  > 💡 Select a named luxury brand and incorporate official lookbook images with proper attribution.

### ✅ `211d0093…` — score 6/10
- Instructional placeholder text appears in the final PDF sections.
- Layout is cluttered across five pages, reducing usability as a daily reference.
- Some tasks seem misplaced across opening and closing sections.
  > 💡 Remove all instructional text and refine layout for a concise, employee-ready final PDF.

### ✅ `d4525420…` — score 8/10
- Text response describes deliverable plan instead of providing the actual decision paragraph.
  > 💡 Include the full 5–7 sentence selection paragraph directly in the text response.

### ✅ `45c6237b…` — score 5/10
- Total Price fields show broken Excel formulas instead of calculated values.
- Shirt size breakdown by S–XXL is missing and quantities are not allocated by size.
- Next Season Assortment section lacks visible product images from the order list.
  > 💡 Fix formulas, allocate shirt quantities by size per guidance, and insert next-season product images.

### ✅ `cecac8f9…` — score 7/10
- Financial targets are shown in dollars instead of UK pounds.
- UK-specific context is limited despite store being UK-based.
  > 💡 Convert all financial metrics to GBP and add brief UK retail context references.

### ✅ `8f9e8bcd…` — score 8/10
- Conclusion text appears truncated mid-sentence.
- File preview truncation prevents confirming complete homework section.
  > 💡 Review the document to ensure all sections are complete and properly finalized.

### ✅ `0fad6023…` — score 6/10
- POG does not visually represent pans in a case-style layout.
- No clear calculation or display of remaining versus total available FSC space.
- Over-allocation is not flagged or highlighted for users.
  > 💡 Add a simple visual pan layout and clear total, remaining, and over-allocated space indicators.

### ✅ `02314fc6…` — score 7/10
- Checklist lacks sufficient detail for several safety areas to be considered comprehensive.
- Corrective action section does not require responsible party or completion date.
- Store identification, inspection date, and inspector name fields are missing.
  > 💡 Expand each section with more granular checks and add accountability fields for corrective actions.

### ✅ `4d61a19a…` — score 8/10
- Excel template does not indicate protected versus editable cells for stores.
- PowerPoint slide count and inclusion of a filled sample cannot be verified from preview.
  > 💡 Add cell protection to the Excel file and confirm the deck includes a filled sample under eight slides.

### ✅ `6436ff9e…` — score 8/10
- One rating item omits a consistent scale option compared to others.
- Safety evaluation visibility is unclear in the truncated section preview.
  > 💡 Standardize all rating scales and verify all key topics appear consistently throughout the form.

### ✅ `8a7b6fca…` — score 7/10
- PDF contains truncated or cut-off text reducing legibility.
- Some labels appear fragmented, suggesting layout or font rendering issues.
  > 💡 Refine layout and font sizing to ensure all labels render clearly without truncation.

### ✅ `40a99a31…` — score 6/10
- Excel table lists only one camera model, not minimum six cameras as required.
- PDF report lacks detailed justification for specific hardware selections.
- Compatibility logic with existing robot drives and IO is described only at a high level.
  > 💡 Explicitly specify quantities, add hardware-specific justifications, and detail IO mapping with robot drives.

### ✅ `b9665ca1…` — score 6/10
- Source drawing software is PPTX, not Visio or AutoCAD Electrical as required.
- E-stop series wiring and specific ES0.K1/K2 wire labels are not clearly shown.
- NO indicator channels lack explicit ES1.SIG, ES2.SIG, ES3.SIG labels.
  > 💡 Redraw the schematic in approved electrical CAD software with explicit wire labels and verified series E-stop wiring.

### ✅ `c6269101…` — score 6/10
- Text response provides no actual analysis results or conclusions.
- Greatest-variability process is not explicitly identified in the narrative.
- PPT content cannot be verified for capability and stability findings.
  > 💡 Add an executive summary clearly stating findings, highest-variability process, and prioritized recommendations.

### ✅ `be830ca0…` — score 6/10
- Analysis includes Saturdays despite requirement for regular business days only.
- Dataset appears baseline-only; Define and Measure stage separation is unclear.
- PowerPoint content cannot be verified against stated slide requirements.

### ❌ `cd9efc18…` — score 3/10
- PDF is only two pages, not the required 8–11 pages.
- Execution details, witnesses, notary, and self-proving affidavit are missing.
- Document appears incomplete or truncated, lacking full customary Texas will provisions.
  > 💡 Redraft and expand the will to full length with complete execution and self-proving sections.

### ✅ `a97369c7…` — score 8/10
- Delaware Senate Bill 313 is not expressly discussed or analyzed.
- Memo does not clearly analyze DGCL §122 beyond listing it.
- Text response promised embedded hyperlinks, which are unclear in the file.
  > 💡 Explicitly analyze SB 313 and add clear statutory hyperlinks to strengthen completeness.

### ✅ `3f625cb2…` — score 8/10
- California law analysis is high-level and omits limits on private CCPA claims.
- Case law discussion relies mainly on one enforcement action.
  > 💡 Add brief clarification on CCPA private rights and expand jurisprudence discussion.

### ✅ `aad21e4c…` — score 7/10
- Minimum 10% ownership anti-dilution and top-up mechanics are not clearly detailed.
- Minority investor consent rights over extraordinary actions appear insufficiently specified.
- Information and inspection rights are not clearly articulated in the preview.
  > 💡 Expand investor protection sections to explicitly cover all requested rights and mechanisms in detail.

### ✅ `8314d1b1…` — score 8/10
- Memo uses generic 'From: Counsel' instead of identifying attorney or firm.
- Recommendations are embedded rather than clearly labeled in a distinct section.
  > 💡 Add a clearly labeled recommendations subsection and identify counsel to enhance professionalism.

### ✅ `5e2b6aab…` — score 6/10
- PDF drawings lack visible balloons and detailed title block information.
- Drawings do not explicitly demonstrate two 18650 glove-accessible battery replacement.
- STEP ZIP content appears minimal and may not contain full manufacturable geometry.
  > 💡 Add detailed balloons, clearer title blocks, and ensure STEP models fully represent required functional features.

### ❌ `46fc494e…` — score 3/10
- Back-face temperature unrealistically remains at 25 C for entire exposure.
- No evidence of transient conduction calculations or node-wise temperature evolution.
- Plots and report lack quantitative node profiles and time-trace data.
  > 💡 Recompute the transient 22-node conduction model and regenerate plots and tables with physically consistent results.

### ✅ `3940b7e7…` — score 6/10
- Report sections do not match required headings like Discussion and Conclusion.
- Key performance metrics and force results are not clearly summarized.
- Design recommendations and aerodynamic implications are insufficiently discussed.
  > 💡 Revise the report to align sections, explicitly summarize metrics, and add clear design recommendations.

### ✅ `8077e700…` — score 6/10
- AISI 1045 analysis relies on assumptions rather than provided experimental data.
- Report lacks quantitative treatment efficiency metrics and explicit time-to-peak calculations.
- Graphs and tables are referenced but not comprehensively included for both materials.
  > 💡 Include quantitative analyses and complete figures for both steels using the provided dataset.

### ✅ `5a2d70da…` — score 6/10
- Manufacturing steps lack drilling and tapping operations despite listed tap.
- Manufacturing steps are overly high-level and omit feature-specific details.
- Master Tool List lacks an explicit grand total line item.
  > 💡 Add complete, feature-based machining steps and include a clear grand total in the tool list.

### ✅ `74d6e8b0…` — score 8/10
- Preview does not clearly show reference list or in-text citations.
  > 💡 Verify and clearly format in-text citations and a complete reference list in the document.

### ✅ `81db15ff…` — score 6/10
- Arizona PA supervision and chart-signature requirements are inaccurately stated under current law.
- Washington PA chart-signature and supervision requirements are overstated.
- PA supervision ratios listed may not be statutorily fixed in several states.
  > 💡 Revalidate PA scope and supervision rules against current state statutes and licensing board guidance.

### ✅ `61b0946a…` — score 8/10
- Proposal does not explicitly address General Surgery’s four required procedures per cadaver.
- Additional 8–10 potential freeze/thaw cycles mentioned by chair are not quantified.
- Interdepartmental scheduling and governance logistics are not detailed.
  > 💡 Add a brief implementation section covering scheduling, governance, and explicit procedure allocation.

### ✅ `61e7b9c6…` — score 5/10
- Formulary is incomplete with many blank rows and limited medication coverage.
- Common off-label menopause treatments are largely missing from the formulary.
- Template contains a factual error in Bijuva generic composition.
  > 💡 Complete and expand the formulary with accurate entries for all approved and common off-label therapies.

### ✅ `c9bf9801…` — score 6/10
- Guide lacks detailed monthly milestones and deliverables.
- Appendix is truncated and missing clearly labeled document references.
- NCIPC mentoring program acknowledgment is missing from credits.
  > 💡 Expand timeline detail, complete the appendix, and add NCIPC acknowledgment to meet requirements.

### ❌ `f1be6436…` — score 3/10
- All screenshots and costs are placeholders, not sourced from live ACP or travel sites.
- No per-physician total cost breakdown against the $2k department cap is provided.
- Flight dates and schedules ignore Dr. Doe’s early departure requirement.
  > 💡 Redo the document using live sources, real screenshots, and complete per-physician cost calculations.

### ✅ `41f6ef59…` — score 7/10
- Spreadsheet does not demonstrate dropdowns, checkboxes, or data validation.
- Excel file shows only one test row without clear input efficiency features.
- Text response describes intent rather than confirming implemented features.
  > 💡 Add visible dropdowns or checkboxes in Excel and briefly confirm their presence in the response.

### ✅ `6d2c8e55…` — score 7/10
- Journal club dates and weekday preference cannot be verified from provided content.
- No explicit evidence that Room Availability.xlsx was updated before saving new schedule.
- Scheduling compliance with holiday and conference exclusions is not clearly demonstrated.
  > 💡 Include a brief summary table of final dates, weekdays, and rooms to verify scheduling compliance.

### ✅ `4b98ccce…` — score 8/10
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing completed data verification.
- Excel signing with name and employee ID not explicitly evidenced in preview.
  > 💡 Include a brief completion summary confirming signatures and data accuracy checks.

### ✅ `60221cd0…` — score 8/10
- An extra DOCX file was produced though only a PDF was requested.
- Early in-person voting start date may be off by one day.
- The text response describes intent rather than summarizing delivered content.
  > 💡 Remove the DOCX file and verify all election dates against the official website.

### ✅ `ef8719da…` — score 7/10
- Hyperlinks to cited background articles are not clearly visible in the document preview.
- A specific draft submission timeline is not clearly identified in the preview.
  > 💡 Add explicit hyperlinks and a clear draft timeline section to strengthen editorial readiness.

### ✅ `3baa0009…` — score 6/10
- Article does not describe global growth as negative as required.
- Article text ends with a truncated, incomplete final sentence.
- No specific forecast figures are cited for US or China growth.
  > 💡 Clarify growth direction with figures, fix truncation, and align wording with task requirements.

### ❌ `5d0feb24…` — score 3/10
- No substantive editorial feedback or proposed edits are provided in the response.
- Scientific claims from the cited arXiv study are not reviewed or verified.
- Links supporting scientific corrections and explanations are missing.
  > 💡 Provide concrete inline edits, detailed comments, and sourced scientific corrections directly addressing the draft content.

### ✅ `6974adea…` — score 6/10
- Text response provides no article content, only a description.
- Compliance with word count, style guide, and interview usage is unverified.
- Files produced include source documents, not just the final deliverable.
  > 💡 Include the full article text and only deliver the final Word document.

### ✅ `1a78e076…` — score 7/10
- Document likely under 10-page minimum based on file size and paragraph count.
- Financial impact of hypertension management is insufficiently detailed.
- Adherence variation across older age subgroups is not clearly stratified.
  > 💡 Expand content with detailed cost analyses, age-stratified adherence data, and additional literature to reach required length.

### ✅ `1b9ec237…` — score 5/10
- PPTX content cannot be verified for required sections and accuracy.
- Slide count, pre-test question, and case study inclusion are unconfirmed.
- Speaker notes and properly formatted references are not verifiable.
  > 💡 Provide a slide-by-slide outline or preview to verify all required elements are present.

### ✅ `0112fc9b…` — score 8/10
- Plan section shows an incomplete bullet point.
- Family history is oversimplified compared to provided details.
  > 💡 Review and finalize the Plan section and fully align family history with source data.

### ✅ `772e7524…` — score 7/10
- Plan section is truncated and incomplete at follow-up instructions.
- Follow-up timeline and criteria for return are not fully specified.
  > 💡 Ensure the Plan section is complete, including clear follow-up timing and return precautions.

### ✅ `e6429658…` — score 7/10
- Text response is meta-promissory rather than summarizing completed deliverables.
- Appeal letter length and page count are not explicitly verified.
- AbbVie assistance form provided as DOCX instead of completed PDF.
  > 💡 Briefly summarize key contents and confirm specifications of each produced document.

### ✅ `b5d2e6f1…` — score 6/10
- Sales by Store tab is missing from the delivered workbook.
- Grand totals are not included on Sales by Brand.
- Requirement to insert pivot table on Data tab is unclear or unmet.
  > 💡 Add the missing Sales by Store pivot with grand totals and confirm all pivot requirements are met.

### ✅ `47ef842d…` — score 8/10
- Active store definition using out-of-stock percentage is not explicitly documented.
- Text response lacks brief interpretation of inventory health findings.
  > 💡 Add a short methodology note and one-paragraph insight summary to improve clarity.

### ✅ `1137e2bb…` — score 6/10
- SKU-level summary or pivot tab is missing from the audit workbook.
- No evidence of drill-down capability from SKU to PO level.
- Extra reference file included that was not explicitly requested.
  > 💡 Add a SKU-level pivot summary tab with PO drill-down and remove non-required files.

### ✅ `c3525d4d…` — score 6/10
- Original total program cost is miscalculated versus provided production estimate.
- No explicit list of removed stores is shown or summarized.
- Excel does not clearly evidence cross-referencing logic between original and final lists.
  > 💡 Recalculate costs using provided component math and add a clear added/removed store reconciliation table.

### ✅ `9a0d8d36…` — score 6/10
- PowerPoint content cannot be verified for required calculations and tax details.
- Text response lacks specific hypothetical numbers and step-by-step examples.
- No explicit confirmation that net proceeds comparison is clearly shown.
  > 💡 Include explicit numerical examples and confirm slide-by-slide coverage of all required tax treatments.

### ✅ `664a42e5…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing actual presentation content.
- Unable to verify slides address all required ILIT topics due to no content preview.
- No confirmation of specific 2025 gift tax exclusion figures used.
  > 💡 Include a slide-by-slide summary confirming each required topic and key figures are addressed.

### ✅ `feb5eefc…` — score 8/10
- Professional recommendation section is not clearly visible in the provided preview.
- CRAT technical requirements like the 10% remainder test are not discussed.
- Scenario illustrations are high-level and lack numeric cash flow detail.

### ✅ `3600de06…` — score 6/10
- Slide count cannot be verified as exactly ten.
- Explicit FINRA and NAIC source citations are not confirmed.
- Talking points versus full slide text clarity is unclear.
  > 💡 Verify slide count and clearly cite FINRA and NAIC sources on relevant slides.

### ✅ `c657103b…` — score 7/10
- Starting 2025 balance is $3.78M, not the stated $3.5M.
- Spreadsheet lacks a clear cumulative tax savings calculation.
- Use of IRS 2025 RMD factors is not explicitly documented.
  > 💡 Align assumptions exactly to the client profile and add explicit tax savings and RMD factor disclosures.

### ✅ `ae0c1093…` — score 9/10
- Guide does not reference jurisdiction-specific considerations for Columbia, SC operations.
  > 💡 Consider adding a brief section on local legal or jurisdictional considerations.

### ✅ `f9f82549…` — score 7/10
- Flowchart PDF is text-only, not a visual flowchart diagram.
- PPT filenames do not clearly reference their corresponding flowchart headers.

### ✅ `57b2cdf2…` — score 8/10
- Summary states "several hours" at residence, but timeline shows approximately one hour twenty-five minutes.
- Surveillance end time extends beyond the client-requested 1:00 a.m. without explicit justification.
- Photographs are referenced generally without specific timestamps or exhibit identifiers.
  > 💡 Revise wording for duration accuracy and add brief justification for extended surveillance and photo references.

### ✅ `6241e678…` — score 6/10
- PDF displays malformed date headers like "Jul 0," indicating a formatting error.
- Kickoff Call is not clearly scheduled on July 7 in the calendar grid.
- Added production tasks exceed requested scope without explanation.
  > 💡 Fix date formatting, ensure all required tasks are clearly scheduled, and justify or remove extra tasks.

### ✅ `e14e32ba…` — score 6/10
- Business hours and physical locations are missing for all restaurants.
- Image fields link to homepages, not actual photos.
- Some media links are truncated or incomplete.
  > 💡 Add addresses, operating hours, proper photo links, and verify all URLs for completeness.

### ✅ `b1a79ce1…` — score 9/10
- Text response uses future tense instead of confirming completed deliverable.
- Text response does not explicitly confirm included color palette and reference imagery.
  > 💡 Briefly describe the finished moodboard contents to confirm all required elements are included.

### ✅ `e4f664ea…` — score 8/10
- Text response is meta and does not summarize the screenplay’s narrative content.
- Includes an unnecessary CONFIDENCE tag outside professional deliverable norms.
- Does not explicitly confirm Courier 12pt formatting was verified in final PDFs.
  > 💡 Add a brief logline and explicit formatting confirmation in the text response.

### ❌ `a079d38f…` — score 4/10
- Excel lacks proper column headers and structured cost breakdown.
- No calculated costs using provided service rates are shown.
- Time estimates are listed but not summed into total crew hours.
  > 💡 Add clear columns, apply service rates to calculate totals, and summarize total hours and costs.

### ❌ `02aa1805…` — score 3/10
- No Illinois EPA data was extracted or reviewed; Excel contains zero wells.
- Email lacks identified top options and specific recommendations.
- Task required populated analysis, not a template due to access limits.
  > 💡 Access the Illinois EPA site, populate the workbook with actual well data, and provide concrete recommendations.

### ✅ `fd6129bd…` — score 6/10
- Change Request Form appears to be a template, not a completed example.
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing delivered content.
- No evidence shown that SOP fully incorporates all working session requirements.
  > 💡 Include a filled example Change Request and briefly summarize SOP sections to demonstrate completeness.

### ✅ `ce864f41…` — score 6/10
- Written summary provides no specific departments, individuals, or projects.
- Responses restate criteria without presenting actual March utilization results.
  > 💡 Include explicit findings with named departments, employees, and projects with quantified utilization or overages.

### ✅ `3c19c6d1…` — score 7/10
- Slide-by-slide content compliance cannot be verified from the summary description.
- Progress summary tabular data presentation on Slide 4 is not explicitly confirmed.
- Report appears to include additional slides beyond the stated minimum requirements.
  > 💡 Include a brief slide-by-slide checklist confirming compliance with each stated requirement.

### ❌ `a99d85fc…` — score 4/10
- Annual and monthly rent matrices are not present or clearly populated.
- No visible formulas, totals, or reconciliation between annual and monthly values.
- Color-coding, notes section, and monthly escalation detail are missing.
  > 💡 Populate full annual and monthly matrices with formulas, totals, notes, and clear color-coded editable inputs.

### ❌ `55ddb773…` — score 4/10
- Did not list specific violation types from the attached Violations Questions PDF.
- Form relies on sub associations to supply violations instead of providing required predefined items.
- Architectural regulations were not itemized as requested.
  > 💡 Manually transcribe and list every violation and architectural item from the attached PDF into the form.

### ❌ `1e5a1d7f…` — score 3/10
- DOCX lacks the required table with four specified columns.
- No actual weekly schedule tasks or times are provided.
- PM duties are not incorporated into the schedule content.
  > 💡 Create a detailed table in the DOCX mapping daily times, activities, duties sources, and week of month.

### ✅ `ed2bc14c…` — score 9/10
- Exit survey categorization into five reasons is not explicitly documented.
- Month-to-month premium lacks a specific rate or percentage.
  > 💡 Add a brief table summarizing all five departure categories and quantify the month-to-month premium.

### ✅ `46bc7238…` — score 6/10
- Cold call and email scripts are generic bullets, not word-for-word QSR scripts.
- One-page flyer template content is not clearly included within the PDF pages.
- Stock photos are not clearly embedded or labeled as free on each page.
  > 💡 Add detailed scripts, embed the flyer and images into the PDF, and clearly label free stock photos.

### ✅ `2d06bc0a…` — score 8/10
- Minor typographical error in the expiration section with a truncated sentence.
  > 💡 Correct the typographical error and review final formatting before delivery to the broker.

### ✅ `fd3ad420…` — score 7/10
- PDF exceeds one-page requirement with two pages.
- Specific commission split percentages are not defined.
- Licensed states FL, GA, and NC are not explicitly listed.
  > 💡 Condense to one page, add explicit split percentages, and reference FL, GA, and NC directly.

### ✅ `0818571f…` — score 5/10
- Listings are not verified active June 2025 Crexi or LoopNet opportunities.
- Report relies on representative placeholder data, photos, and maps.
- Public listing links are generic and not property-specific.
  > 💡 Replace placeholders with verified live listings, real photos, maps, and direct URLs from Crexi or LoopNet.

### ❌ `6074bba3…` — score 3/10
- CMA PDF contains extensive placeholder text and missing subject property details.
- Comparable sales and active listings are not populated with real market data.
- Required graphs are referenced but not embedded with actual data.
  > 💡 Complete the CMA by inserting real comparable data, finalized summaries, and populated graphs before delivery.

### ✅ `5ad0c554…` — score 7/10
- Does not explicitly reference or identify items from the linked '132 Things Realtors Do for Buyers' document.
- Double-sided brochure layout and visual placement are not clearly demonstrated in the Word file.
- NAR settlement explanation is high-level and may lack precise compliance language.
  > 💡 Add explicit citations to the 132-item list and format the document as a clearly designed two-page brochure.

### ❌ `11593a50…` — score 4/10
- Property PDF is four pages and includes 15 homes, violating less-than-15 and two-page limits.
- Required list date column and real listing photos are missing, replaced by placeholders.
- Map is schematic without true geocoded pins, reducing accuracy and usability.
  > 💡 Reduce to under 15 homes, compress to two pages, add list dates, real photos, and a true pinned map.

### ✅ `94925f49…` — score 7/10
- School data lacks explicit citations to required reputable sources.
- Home listings are generic examples without verifiable MLS links.
- Academic metrics are qualitative rather than quantitative in places.
  > 💡 Add clear source citations and specific MLS-linked home listings to strengthen credibility.

### ✅ `90f37ff3…` — score 8/10
- Comparable listings lack dates to confirm they are within the past three years.
- Market survey does not cite specific public sources for each comparable.
  > 💡 Add listing dates and source attribution for each comparable to strengthen credibility.

### ✅ `403b9234…` — score 7/10
- Slide count and required content cannot be verified from the file preview.
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing actual slide content.
  > 💡 Include a brief slide-by-slide outline and confirm the total slide count.

### ✅ `1bff4551…` — score 6/10
- No evidence songs are represented in the Institute collection as requested.
- Original song YouTube link is incomplete and unusable.
- Collection search website was not cited or referenced for any act.
  > 💡 Verify collection holdings for each artist and provide complete, valid reference links.

### ✅ `650adcb1…` — score 7/10
- Schedule key is embedded in December sheet, not a dedicated first tab.
- Sixth tab summarizing intern time-off requests is not clearly present.
- Color-coding requirements cannot be verified from file content preview.
  > 💡 Add a dedicated first tab for the key and a clear sixth tab summarizing all time-off requests.

### ✅ `01d7e53e…` — score 7/10
- Text response summarizes intent but does not confirm all required agreement terms are included.
- No verification that agreement includes exact term dates, renewals, or scheduling specifics.
- Primary contact details and indemnification language are not confirmed in the response.
  > 💡 Explicitly confirm in the response that each required provision is present in the draft agreement.

### ✅ `a73fbc98…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing actual assignment results.
- No evidence shows product-type separation to avoid similar vendors adjacent.
- Electricity notation is inconsistent and sometimes missing in the plan.
  > 💡 Add a brief summary confirming how vendor preferences and product variety rules were satisfied.

### ✅ `0ec25916…` — score 7/10
- PDF contains visible encoding artifacts like '(cid:127)' affecting professionalism.
- Table structure is not clearly formatted as two columns by four rows.
  > 💡 Fix encoding issues and enforce a clear two-column, four-row table layout.

### ✅ `116e791e…` — score 7/10
- PDF is two pages, not the required one-page care plan.
- Original task did not request an additional DOCX file.
  > 💡 Condense content to a single-page PDF and omit unrequested file formats.

### ❌ `dd724c67…` — score 3/10
- Facility contact list is empty and lacks required researched hospital and rehabilitation entries.
- TFU reference lacks condition-specific timeframes as defined in the CMS PY 2025 metric.
- Deliverable relies on placeholders and unverified content instead of required online research.
  > 💡 Populate the spreadsheet with verified Long Island facilities and CMS-defined TFU details from official sources.

### ❌ `7151c60a…` — score 3/10
- Fax cover sheet lacks sender, recipient, date, fax numbers, and page count fields.
- Pre-screening checklist missing required table, page numbers, and internal-only Date Received/Initials fields.
- Checklist does not include all required patient information elements from the provided document.
  > 💡 Revise both Word documents to add all missing required fields, tables, and formatting per the original task.

### ❌ `90edba97…` — score 3/10
- Did not enter monthly lab data into the tracker as required.
- Failed to document treatment or medication changes per protocols.
- Produced an unrequested master list instead of completing the specified spreadsheet.
  > 💡 Populate the Monthly Tracker with all patient labs and protocol-driven actions using the provided reports.

### ✅ `91060ff0…` — score 5/10
- Poster contains garbled, unreadable text indicating formatting or export errors.
- No references cited despite requirement for evidence-based sources.
- Visual elements like tables or icons are minimal or unclear.
  > 💡 Proofread and re-export the poster, add cited references, and enhance clear visual elements.

### ✅ `8384083a…` — score 6/10
- DOCX file lacks the required medication table and detailed content.
- Multiple typos and broken formatting reduce professionalism and audit readiness.
- Table headers and medication names are truncated or unclear.
  > 💡 Revise formatting, correct typos, and ensure all files contain the complete, consistent reference table.

### ✅ `045aba2e…` — score 8/10
- Checklists lack explicit California code or section citations.
- Some tasks are high-level and may miss nuanced regulatory requirements.
- Documents lack version control, dates, and responsible role fields.
  > 💡 Add specific law citations, role assignments, and document control details to strengthen compliance usability.

### ❌ `f2986c1f…` — score 3/10
- Medications were not identified using Drugs.com as required.
- Spreadsheet contains only placeholder NA values without actual drug information.
- Each distinct medication in the image was not individually documented.
  > 💡 Identify pills via Drugs.com and populate complete, per-medication details in the spreadsheet.

### ✅ `ffed32d8…` — score 5/10
- Comparative table lacks required drug, vial, supply costs, and reimbursement details.
- Methodology and calculations are not shown or explained.
- Revenue analysis only presents totals without cost-effectiveness breakdown.
  > 💡 Include a full comparative table detailing drug cost, vial cost, reimbursement, and revenue calculations for each fill model.

### ✅ `b3573f20…` — score 6/10
- PDF is nine pages instead of the required three pages.
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing delivered content.
- Page length control and spacing were not managed to meet specification.
  > 💡 Condense content and adjust spacing to deliver a clear three-page PDF only.

### ✅ `a69be28f…` — score 8/10
- Text response lacks explicit top-fit results by region.
- Executive summary highlights overall leaders, not regional leaders.
  > 💡 Add concise bullets naming top men’s and women’s fits for each region in the summary.

### ✅ `788d2bc6…` — score 6/10
- TikTok Shop and influencer services are not clearly covered in the deck.
- Visual elements and open-source images are not evident in the PDF.
- Review generation and influencer outreach services appear missing.
  > 💡 Add dedicated TikTok and influencer slides with visuals and explicitly include review generation services.

### ✅ `74ed1dc7…` — score 7/10
- Proposal document content is truncated and ends mid-sentence.
- EDI Correction Hold rationale appears incomplete.
- Text response does not summarize actual proposal findings.
  > 💡 Complete the truncated sections and align the text response with the delivered document content.

### ✅ `69a8ef86…` — score 8/10
- An extra unrequested file was produced alongside the two required documents.
  > 💡 Remove the extra file and ensure only the two specified deliverables are shared.

### ✅ `ab81b076…` — score 8/10
- PDF references visual examples but does not visibly embed or display the images.
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing key procedure highlights.
  > 💡 Embed the example images directly in the PDF and briefly summarize key steps in the text response.

### ✅ `d7cfae6f…` — score 6/10
- Recap calculations are not demonstrated or summarized in the text response.
- Timeframe confusion between Q1 2023 and Q1 2024 is not explicitly resolved.
- No verification that percent change and inventory coverage metrics are correctly calculated.
  > 💡 Add a brief summary validating key calculations and explicitly clarify the Q1 timeframe used.

### ❌ `19403010…` — score 4/10
- Sections 3–5 function-level analyses are missing from the recap sheet.
- Recap does not include required nine-column structure for Sections 3–5.
- One-page recap lacks clearly labeled sections for Top Drivers and Detractors.
  > 💡 Add Sections 3–5 with full nine-column function tables and totals to complete the one-page recap.

### ❌ `105f8ad0…` — score 4/10
- No online competitor research conducted as required; benchmarks reused from provided averages.
- Several SKUs lack competitor average inputs, undermining ±6% validation.
- Rationales are generic and do not explain concentration or COGS relationships per SKU.
  > 💡 Conduct required online MSRP research, populate all benchmarks, and provide SKU-specific pricing rationales.

### ✅ `b57efde3…` — score 5/10
- Did not review the official Aqua Nor 2025 exhibitor list as required.
- Prospecting list contains only three companies, far short of expected coverage.
- Output relies on placeholder assumptions rather than verified exhibitor research.
  > 💡 Review the full Aqua Nor 2025 exhibitor list and expand the spreadsheet with verified, comprehensive entries.

### ✅ `15d37511…` — score 8/10
- Tiered pricing is not explicitly shown as separate less-than and greater-than 1,000 unit tiers.
- Text response summarizes intent but does not highlight key financial results.
- Extra columns add complexity beyond the requested simple spreadsheet.
  > 💡 Add explicit rows or notes showing both pricing tiers and summarize total Year 1 margin in the text.

### ✅ `bb863dd9…` — score 7/10
- Payment condition of 100% prepayment is not stated in the quotation.
- WHO documentation link is not included in the quotation file.
- Quotation lacks a clear total order value summary in USD.
  > 💡 Add missing commercial terms, WHO reference link, and a clear total USD summary to the quotation.

### ✅ `fe0d3941…` — score 8/10
- Survey does not specify target sample size exceeding one hundred respondents.
  > 💡 Add a brief statement defining intended respondent count and distribution for the survey.

### ✅ `6a900a40…` — score 7/10
- Revised quotation shows misaligned headers and columns, reducing clarity and professionalism.
- General remark validity range conflicts with road freight quote’s 10-day validity.
- Preview does not clearly evidence red font for the general remark.
  > 💡 Review spreadsheet formatting, align validity statements, and verify required red-font remark is correctly applied.

### ✅ `9efbcd35…` — score 6/10
- MSCI performance data is referenced but no specific figures or benchmarks are provided.
- No explicit citations or attribution to WSJ, FT, or research sources are included.
- The document contains a truncated sentence, indicating incomplete or sloppy editing.
  > 💡 Add concrete MSCI performance figures, source citations, and fix all editing errors to improve credibility.

### ✅ `1d4672c8…` — score 5/10
- Uses simulated return data instead of extracting actual MSCI historical data.
- Does not demonstrate verified data sourcing from MSCI website as required.
- Author role stated as sales agent, not financial analyst as specified.
  > 💡 Rebuild analysis using actual MSCI data downloads and clearly document data sources and methodology.

### ✅ `4de6a529…` — score 5/10
- Several required sub-asset classes from the reference lists are missing or incomplete.
- Change indicators are largely absent despite being explicitly required.
- There are visible typos and data quality errors in asset class names.
  > 💡 Add all required sub-asset classes, complete change indicators, and correct all typographical errors.

### ✅ `4c4dc603…` — score 5/10
- Salient numbers and token economics lack concrete figures and rely on placeholders.
- Key team member profiles are generic and omit names and credentials.
- Contact details include an incomplete website and missing disclosures link.
  > 💡 Populate all metrics from the IM, add named team bios, and correct contact and disclosure links.

### ✅ `bb499d9c…` — score 7/10
- Text response only describes intent, not a summary of delivered content.
- No evidence of external industry best-practice research cited.
- Word document length and page limit compliance not verified.
  > 💡 Add an executive summary and citations, and confirm document length within requirements.

### ✅ `5349dd7b…` — score 6/10
- Historical rate increases were assumed, not researched via search engines as required.
- UPS and FedEx flat rate offerings may be inaccurate or not true flat rate products.
- Business rate eligibility and sources are not documented.
  > 💡 Validate all rates and increases with cited sources and confirm true flat rate business products.

### ✅ `a4a9195c…` — score 8/10
- IPC-A-610G is referenced but not explicitly mapped to specific SOP requirements.
- Document lacks revision history and approval signatures.
- Environmental controls lack specific humidity ranges.
  > 💡 Add document control details and explicitly link key procedures to IPC-A-610G clauses.

### ✅ `552b7dd0…` — score 8/10
- Text response is future-focused rather than summarizing completed analytical results.
- Excel report file was produced though not explicitly requested in the task.
  > 💡 Include a brief summary of key numerical findings directly in the text response.

### ❌ `76418a2c…` — score 3/10
- Completed manifest lacks required cost, industry average, and savings calculations.
- Shipping methods not correctly assigned for all pick ticket weights.
- Manifest headers and fields are incomplete or improperly populated.
  > 💡 Populate the manifest fully using pick ticket data, correct methods by weight, and include cost and savings calculations.

### ❌ `0e386e32…` — score 3/10
- Delivered ZIP is extremely small and likely lacks meaningful implementation.
- Output provides a promise of code rather than verifiable, complete functionality.
- Key requirements are addressed only as placeholders, not real implementations.
  > 💡 Provide a fully implemented codebase with verifiable contracts, frontend, and documentation matching all stated requirements.

### ❌ `7de33b48…` — score 4/10
- Zip contents cannot be verified; no preview of required files or implementations.
- Archive size seems too small for utility, tests, CSS, package.json, and README.
- No evidence WCAG ARIA22 tests or visible prop behavior are implemented.
  > 💡 Provide file previews or inline contents verifying utility implementation and required tests.

### ❌ `4122f866…` — score 3/10
- Terraform configurations and SES resources are not shown or verifiable.
- ZIP contents lack visible Lambda code and Terraform files.
- README lacks required variable definitions and detailed deployment steps.
  > 💡 Include complete Terraform files, Lambda source, and expanded README with all required details.

### ❌ `2c249e0f…` — score 2/10
- OpenAPI 3.0 YAML specification was not produced.
- Only data_flow.txt exists; required API file is missing.
- No concrete API endpoints, schemas, or resumable upload definitions provided.
  > 💡 Produce the full OpenAPI 3.0 YAML alongside the existing data_flow.txt.

## Failure Analysis

The clearest hard-failure pattern is deterministic spreadsheet/ETL brittleness rather than broad reasoning collapse. Most of the 11 terminal errors came from code assuming exact column names or clean numeric types in operational workbook tasks: b7a5912e-0e63-41f5-8c22-9cdb8f46ab01 failed on missing 'Total days', 5f6c57dd-feb6-4e70-b152-4969d92d1608 on missing 'Branch', 327fbc21-7d26-4964-bf7c-f4f41e55c54d on missing 'Store ID#', a0552909-bc66-4a3a-8970-ee0d17b49718 on missing 'Request Sent Date', f841ddcf-2a28-4f6d-bac3-61b607219d3e on missing 'Actual Ship Date', 7ed932dd-244f-4d61-bf02-1bc3bab1af14 on missing 'In Stock (cases)', and 11dcc268-cb07-4d3a-a184-c6d7a19349bc on a StopIteration while locating 'Item #'. Additional failures were similarly mechanical: 3f821c2d-ab97-46ec-a0fb-b8f73c2682bc hit ZeroDivisionError, 1752cb53-5983-46b6-92ee-58ac85a11283 hit a dtype write error, a46d5cd2-55fe-48fa-a4c6-6aaf6b9991b5 failed on a bad image asset, and 854f3814-681c-4950-91ac-55b0db0e3781 died with a SyntaxError. This error mix clusters in spreadsheet-heavy operational roles in Wholesale, Manufacturing, Finance, Health Care admin, and Real Estate clerical work, while Government text/document tasks had no terminal failures and repeatedly scored well, such as a328feea-47db-4856-b4be-2bdc63dd88fb, 7bbfcfe9-132d-4194-82bb-d6f29d001b01, and a95a5829-34bb-40f3-993b-558aed6dcdef.

A second pattern is that many nominal successes were not true task fulfillment but deliverable substitution: the model produced a memo, plan, or template instead of the requested executable artifact. This is strongest in Information and software/media occupations. Audio/video tasks ff85ee58-bc9f-4aa2-806d-87edeabb1b81 and 4b894ae3-1f23-4560-b13d-07ed1132074e did not produce required WAV outputs; film/video tasks e222075d-5d62-4757-ae3c-e34b0846583b, c94452e4-39cd-4846-b73a-ab75933d1ad7, 75401f7c-396d-406d-b08e-938874ad1045, and a941b6d8-4289-4500-b45a-f8e4fc94a724 returned planning packages instead of final MP4/video deliverables; software tasks 0e386e32-df20-4d1f-b536-7159bc409ad5, 4122f866-01fa-400b-904d-fa171cdab7c7, and 2c249e0f-4a8c-4f8e-b4f4-6508ba29b34f produced tiny or incomplete archives, with missing APIs or unverifiable implementation. Similar substitution appeared outside Information too: 43dc9778-450b-4b46-b77e-b6d82b202035 described preparing a tax return without evidencing a completed 1040, and 7b08cd4d-df60-41ae-9102-8aaa49306ba2 produced a P&L workbook with zeros. This means completion rate overstates effective task delivery whenever the requested output is binary, executable, or calculation-heavy.

A third failure mode is unverified external-data work: tasks needing real web research, live market data, or source-grounded lookup often completed with placeholders, illustrative values, or empty tables. Examples include 8079e27d-b6f3-4f75-a9b5-db27903c798d using illustrative S&P 500 data, a10ec48c-168e-476c-8fe3-23b2a5f616ac leaving restaurant tables effectively empty, 0818571f-5ff7-4d39-9d2c-ced5ae44299e and 6074bba3-7e3a-4b1c-b8c6-a15bb6695c3b using placeholder real-estate comps, dd724c67-8118-4b99-ab50-4761af705c3b leaving facility research unpopulated, f2986c1f-2bbf-4b83-bc93-624a9d617f45 filling a drug ID sheet with NA placeholders, and 02aa1805-c658-4069-8a6a-02dec146063a returning zero Illinois EPA wells. In contrast, closed-world document synthesis from provided materials was much stronger: legal/policy/operations documents like c2e8f271-7858-412f-b460-472463ad81d9, a97369c7-e5cf-40ca-99e8-d06f81c57d53, and 74d6e8b0-f334-4e7e-af55-c095d5d4d1a6 scored materially better.

Retries helped stability but did not fix capability mismatches. All 11 terminal failures had already been retried, suggesting the retry mechanism mostly re-ran brittle logic rather than adapting to observed schema problems. Several retried tasks did convert from failure to success yet remained low quality, including ff85ee58-bc9f-4aa2-806d-87edeabb1b81 (QA 3), b39a5aa7-cd1b-47ad-b249-90afd22f8f21 (QA 3), a079d38f-c529-436a-beca-3e291f9e62a3 (QA 4), and 76418a2c-a3c0-4894-b89d-2493369135d9 (QA 3); only some formatting-oriented retries clearly paid off, such as 4d61a19a-8438-4d4c-9fc2-cf167e36dcd6 (QA 8). Latency also did not buy quality: 38889c3b-e3d4-49c8-816a-3cc8e5313aba took 347,660 ms for QA 6, while high-quality Government tasks like a328feea-47db-4856-b4be-2bdc63dd88fb and 7bbfcfe9-132d-4194-82bb-d6f29d001b01 scored 9 with roughly 10-12 s latency. The weak sectors were therefore not merely slower; they were misaligned with the current tool/execution stack.

## Recommendations

First, harden the execution path for spreadsheet and code-driven tasks with a mandatory schema-discovery preflight. Before any business logic runs, the agent should enumerate sheets, normalize headers, detect duplicate/merged headers, and build a fuzzy column map; only then should it attempt transformations. That one change would address the largest cluster of terminal failures in b7a5912e-0e63-41f5-8c22-9cdb8f46ab01, 5f6c57dd-feb6-4e70-b152-4969d92d1608, 327fbc21-7d26-4964-bf7c-f4f41e55c54d, a0552909-bc66-4a3a-8970-ee0d17b49718, f841ddcf-2a28-4f6d-bac3-61b607219d3e, 7ed932dd-244f-4d61-bf02-1bc3bab1af14, and 11dcc268-cb07-4d3a-a184-c6d7a19349bc. Add numeric guardrails as well: explicit zero-denominator checks for cases like 3f821c2d-ab97-46ec-a0fb-b8f73c2682bc, dtype coercion and safe casting for 1752cb53-5983-46b6-92ee-58ac85a11283, and file-format validation for image/document assets before insertion, which would have prevented a46d5cd2-55fe-48fa-a4c6-6aaf6b9991b5.

Second, route by artifact modality and require tool-backed verification of the final deliverable, not just file creation. Audio/video jobs should only pass if the final WAV/MP4 exists and metadata checks confirm expected duration, codec, and bit depth; that would have blocked false-success outcomes in ff85ee58-bc9f-4aa2-806d-87edeabb1b81, 4b894ae3-1f23-4560-b13d-07ed1132074e, e222075d-5d62-4757-ae3c-e34b0846583b, c94452e4-39cd-4846-b73a-ab75933d1ad7, 75401f7c-396d-406d-b08e-938874ad1045, and a941b6d8-4289-4500-b45a-f8e4fc94a724. Software tasks should be auto-unzipped and checked for required filenames, minimum file counts/sizes, README completeness, and optional test/lint execution; that would catch 0e386e32-df20-4d1f-b536-7159bc409ad5, 7de33b48-5163-4f50-b5f3-8deea8185e57, 4122f866-01fa-400b-904d-fa171cdab7c7, and 2c249e0f-4a8c-4f8e-b4f4-6508ba29b34f. For live-research tasks, either enable browsing/search tools or require citation-bearing evidence blocks in the output before the run can finalize, which would directly address the placeholder pattern in 8079e27d-b6f3-4f75-a9b5-db27903c798d, 0818571f-5ff7-4d39-9d2c-ced5ae44299e, 6074bba3-7e3a-4b1c-b8c6-a15bb6695c3b, 02aa1805-c658-4069-8a6a-02dec146063a, dd724c67-8118-4b99-ab50-4761af705c3b, and f2986c1f-2bbf-4b83-bc93-624a9d617f45.

Third, tighten QA gating so the system distinguishes between a file existing and the requested work being done. A number of low-QA successes should have been auto-rejected because the core artifact was absent or hollow. Add deliverable-specific acceptance rules: non-zero populated cells and formula checks for finance/workbook tasks like 7b08cd4d-df60-41ae-9102-8aaa49306ba2 and 45c6237b-f9c9-4526-9a8d-6a5c404624ec; tab/pivot/table presence checks for Excel deliverables such as 83d10b06-26d1-4636-a32c-23f92c57f30b and b5d2e6f1-62a2-433a-bcdd-95b260cdd860; page-count and section checks for long-form legal/tax work like cd9efc18-d14a-4f69-8531-5d178a08084d and 43dc9778-450b-4b46-b77e-b6d82b202035; and mandatory field/table checks for operational templates. Given the overall Self-QA mean of 6.13, a generic pass on all completed tasks is too permissive. Binary media, external-data, and executable-code tasks need stricter hard-fail criteria than text memo tasks, because Government-style policy documents are already comparatively reliable.

Fourth, make retries adaptive instead of identical reruns. When the first attempt fails with a KeyError, StopIteration, ZeroDivisionError, SyntaxError, or file-format exception, the retry prompt should explicitly instruct the model to inspect the workbook structure, print discovered headers, remap columns, repair typing, or bypass invalid assets before regenerating output. That would likely improve the current poor retry yield on b7a5912e-0e63-41f5-8c22-9cdb8f46ab01, 5f6c57dd-feb6-4e70-b152-4969d92d1608, 327fbc21-7d26-4964-bf7c-f4f41e55c54d, a0552909-bc66-4a3a-8970-ee0d17b49718, and a46d5cd2-55fe-48fa-a4c6-6aaf6b9991b5. Also add a final answer-side verification step that forces the model to summarize what it actually produced, because many otherwise acceptable outputs lost QA through promissory or meta narration rather than evidence of results, including c44e9b62-7cd8-4f72-8ad9-f8fbddb94083, dfb4e0cd-a0b7-454e-b943-0dd586c2764c, ec591973-04d5-48c0-981c-1ab2fcec2dc1, and bb499d9c-0263-4684-9238-75e8e86077b1. Reusing the concise, evidence-forward style that worked in high-performing Government and legal tasks should improve trustworthiness without materially increasing latency.

## Deliverable Files

- `83d10b06…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 3 file(s)
- `7b08cd4d…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `7d7fc9a7…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 7 file(s)
- `43dc9778…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 17 file(s)
- `ee09d943…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 18 file(s)
- `f84ea6ac…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a328feea…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `27e8912c…` (Government): 6 file(s)
- `17111c03…` (Government): 4 file(s)
- `c44e9b62…` (Government): 7 file(s)
- `99ac6944…` (Information): 5 file(s)
- `f9a1c16c…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `38889c3b…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `ff85ee58…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `4b894ae3…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `1b1ade2d…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `93b336f3…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `15ddd28d…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `24d1e93f…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `05389f78…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `575f8679…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a74ead3b…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `bbe0a93b…` (Government): 6 file(s)
- `85d95ce5…` (Government): 5 file(s)
- `76d10872…` (Government): 6 file(s)
- `36d567ba…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `7bbfcfe9…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `2696757c…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `dfb4e0cd…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `4c18ebae…` (Government): 3 file(s)
- `cebf301e…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `c2e8f271…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `2ea2e5b5…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 6 file(s)
- `c357f0e2…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `a45bc83b…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 5 file(s)
- `a10ec48c…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `fccaa4a1…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `f5d428fd…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 9 file(s)
- `2fa8e956…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `0e4fe8cd…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `a0ef404e…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `aa071045…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `476db143…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 6 file(s)
- `61f546a8…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 5 file(s)
- `f3351922…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `61717508…` (Finance and Insurance): 5 file(s)
- `0ed38524…` (Finance and Insurance): 5 file(s)
- `87da214f…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `d025a41c…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `401a07f1…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `afe56d05…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `9a8c8e28…` (Information): 6 file(s)
- `3a4c347c…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `ec2fccc9…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `8c8fc328…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `e222075d…` (Information): 6 file(s)
- `c94452e4…` (Information): 4 file(s)
- `75401f7c…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `a941b6d8…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `8079e27d…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `e21cd746…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `9e8607e7…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `c7d83f01…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `46b34f78…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `a1963a68…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `b39a5aa7…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `b78fd844…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `4520f882…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `ec591973…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `62f04c2f…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `e996036e…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `6dcae3f5…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `1aecc095…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 4 file(s)
- `0353ee0c…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 4 file(s)
- `40a8c4b1…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 4 file(s)
- `4d1a8410…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 11 file(s)
- `8c823e32…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `eb54f575…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `11e1b169…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `a95a5829…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `22c0809b…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `bf68f2ad…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `efca245f…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `9e39df84…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `68d8d901…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `bd72994f…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `211d0093…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `d4525420…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `45c6237b…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `cecac8f9…` (Retail Trade): 7 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): 2 file(s)
- `8a7b6fca…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `40a99a31…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `b9665ca1…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `c6269101…` (Manufacturing): 5 file(s)
- `be830ca0…` (Manufacturing): 8 file(s)
- `cd9efc18…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `a97369c7…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `3f625cb2…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `aad21e4c…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `8314d1b1…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `5e2b6aab…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `46fc494e…` (Manufacturing): 6 file(s)
- `3940b7e7…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `8077e700…` (Manufacturing): 5 file(s)
- `5a2d70da…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `74d6e8b0…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `81db15ff…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `61b0946a…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `61e7b9c6…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `c9bf9801…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 5 file(s)
- `f1be6436…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 5 file(s)
- `41f6ef59…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `6d2c8e55…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 13 file(s)
- `4b98ccce…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 7 file(s)
- `60221cd0…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `ef8719da…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `3baa0009…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `5d0feb24…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `6974adea…` (Information): 8 file(s)
- `1a78e076…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `1b9ec237…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `0112fc9b…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `772e7524…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `e6429658…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 4 file(s)
- `b5d2e6f1…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `47ef842d…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `1137e2bb…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `c3525d4d…` (Wholesale Trade): 5 file(s)
- `9a0d8d36…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `664a42e5…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `feb5eefc…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `3600de06…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `c657103b…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `ae0c1093…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `f9f82549…` (Retail Trade): 9 file(s)
- `57b2cdf2…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `84322284…` (Retail Trade): 5 file(s)
- `6241e678…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `e14e32ba…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `b1a79ce1…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `e4f664ea…` (Information): 4 file(s)
- `a079d38f…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `02aa1805…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `fd6129bd…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 3 file(s)
- `ce864f41…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 5 file(s)
- `58ac1cc5…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 8 file(s)
- `3c19c6d1…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 5 file(s)
- `a99d85fc…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `55ddb773…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `1e5a1d7f…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `0419f1c3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `ed2bc14c…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `46bc7238…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 8 file(s)
- `2d06bc0a…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `fd3ad420…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `0818571f…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 13 file(s)
- `6074bba3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 5 file(s)
- `5ad0c554…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `11593a50…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 4 file(s)
- `94925f49…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 11 file(s)
- `90f37ff3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `d3d255b2…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `403b9234…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `1bff4551…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `650adcb1…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `01d7e53e…` (Government): 4 file(s)
- `a73fbc98…` (Government): 5 file(s)
- `0ec25916…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `116e791e…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `dd724c67…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `7151c60a…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 5 file(s)
- `90edba97…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 6 file(s)
- `91060ff0…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `8384083a…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `045aba2e…` (Retail Trade): 6 file(s)
- `f2986c1f…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `ffed32d8…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `b3573f20…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `a69be28f…` (Wholesale Trade): 19 file(s)
- `788d2bc6…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `74ed1dc7…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `69a8ef86…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `ab81b076…` (Wholesale Trade): 5 file(s)
- `d7cfae6f…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `19403010…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `105f8ad0…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `b57efde3…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `15d37511…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `bb863dd9…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `fe0d3941…` (Wholesale Trade): 5 file(s)
- `6a900a40…` (Wholesale Trade): 6 file(s)
- `9efbcd35…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `1d4672c8…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `4de6a529…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `4c4dc603…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `bb499d9c…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `5349dd7b…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `a4a9195c…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `552b7dd0…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `76418a2c…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `0e386e32…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `7de33b48…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `4122f866…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `2c249e0f…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
