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

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| **Experiment ID** | `exp008_GPT52Chat_resume2_elicit_v2` |
| **Condition** | Elicit v2 16k + resume_rounds 2 |
| **Model** | gpt-5.2-chat |
| **Execution Mode** | subprocess |
| **Date** | 2026-03-03 |
| **Duration** | 149m 7s |
| **Generated At** | 2026-03-03T11:49:27.338496+00:00 |
| 🤗 HF Dataset | [exp008_GPT52Chat_resume2_elicit_v2](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp008_GPT52Chat_resume2_elicit_v2) |
| 📊 Self-Report | [self_report.json](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp008_GPT52Chat_resume2_elicit_v2/blob/main/self_report.json) |
| 📊 Grading | ⏳ Awaiting (`scores.json`) |

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

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

This run evaluated GPT-5.2 Chat under the Elicit v2 16k condition with resume_max_rounds set to 2, executed in subprocess mode across 220 tasks. The primary outcome was strong task completion: 215 of 220 tasks succeeded, for a 97.7% task completion rate, with 5 terminal errors and 26 tasks requiring retry handling. Average end-to-end latency was 29,436 ms.

From an LLM-evaluated quality perspective, the model’s mean self-assessed confidence score was 6.07/10, with a wide spread from 2 to 9. This indicates that most completed tasks were judged by the model as usable but not uniformly high-confidence. The gap between the minimum and maximum self-QA suggests meaningful variation in output quality even when task execution completed successfully.

Sector coverage was broad and mostly stable. Six sectors achieved full completion: Finance and Insurance, Government, Health Care and Social Assistance, Information, Real Estate and Rental and Leasing, and Retail Trade. Residual execution failures were concentrated in Manufacturing (23/25), Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (24/25), and Wholesale Trade (23/25), indicating that the remaining reliability issues were localized rather than systemic.

Deliverable file generation quality appears operationally solid in terms of completeness, since nearly all tasks reached successful completion and therefore likely produced artifacts. However, the moderate average self-assessed confidence implies that file generation quality was more consistent on existence than on strength: most deliverables were produced, but a non-trivial subset were likely only moderate in clarity, completeness, or final polish.

## Key Metrics

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Tasks | 220 |
| Success | 215 (97.7%) |
| Errors | 5 |
| Retried Tasks | 26 |
| Avg QA Score | 6.07/10 |
| Min QA Score | 2/10 |
| Max QA Score | 9/10 |
| Avg Latency | 29,436ms |
| Max Latency | 348,422ms |
| Total LLM Time | 6475s |

## File Generation

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Tasks requiring files | 185 |
| Successfully generated | 180 (97.3%) |
| Failed → dummy created | 5 |

### Resume Rounds

| Round | Attempted | Recovered | Still Failed |
|-------|-----------|-----------|--------------|
| 1 | 13 | 13 | 0 |
| 2 | 13 | 8 | 5 |

## Quality Analysis

The self-QA distribution points to mid-tier LLM-evaluated quality rather than uniformly strong performance. An average of 6.07/10, alongside a minimum of 2 and maximum of 9, suggests the model frequently judged its outputs as acceptable but not consistently high-confidence. This spread matters because it indicates that successful execution should not be treated as equivalent to uniformly strong deliverable quality; some completed tasks likely produced weak or partially satisfactory outputs.

Sector-level differences were noticeable. Retail Trade had the strongest average self-assessed confidence at 7.0/10 and also maintained perfect completion, making it the clearest high-quality segment in this run. Government also performed well at 6.8/10 with full completion. By contrast, Health Care and Social Assistance and Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services both averaged 5.6/10, while Information was only 5.8/10 despite full task completion. Manufacturing, Finance, and Wholesale clustered near the overall mean, indicating steadier but not standout quality.

Latency did not show a simple positive relationship with quality. Information had by far the highest average latency at 44,917 ms but only moderate self-assessed confidence at 5.8/10, so additional runtime did not translate into better LLM-evaluated quality there. Retail Trade showed the opposite pattern: the best quality score and the lowest average latency at 23,913 ms. Government also combined relatively strong quality with below-average latency. Overall, the data suggests weak correlation between longer execution time and higher self-QA in this experiment.

Occupation-specific analysis is limited because the reported aggregates are sector-level rather than role-level, so no direct occupation breakout is available. Within that constraint, the pattern suggests that more execution-fragile areas were concentrated in Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, and Professional/Scientific/Technical workloads, where both completion shortfalls and middling self-assessed confidence were present. In practical terms, deliverable files from these segments likely warrant closer review for completeness and consistency, while Retail and Government appear to have produced the most reliable combination of completion and LLM-evaluated quality.

## Sector Breakdown

| Sector | Tasks | Success | Success% | Avg QA | Avg Latency |
|--------|-------|---------|----------|--------|-------------|
| Finance and Insurance | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 5.92/10 | 29,301ms |
| Government | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 6.84/10 | 27,811ms |
| Health Care and Social Assistance | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 5.6/10 | 26,975ms |
| Information | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 5.8/10 | 44,917ms |
| Manufacturing | 25 | 23 | 92.0% | 5.87/10 | 31,494ms |
| Professional, Scientific, and Technical  | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 5.62/10 | 26,003ms |
| Real Estate and Rental and Leasing | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 6.12/10 | 28,630ms |
| Retail Trade | 20 | 20 | 100.0% | 7.05/10 | 23,913ms |
| Wholesale Trade | 25 | 23 | 92.0% | 6.0/10 | 24,774ms |

## Task Results

| # | Task ID | Sector | Occupation | Status | Retry | Files | QA Score | Latency |
|---|---------|--------|------------|--------|-------|-------|----------|---------|
| 1 | `83d10b06…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 25540ms |
| 2 | `7b08cd4d…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 21520ms |
| 3 | `7d7fc9a7…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 7 | 4/10 | 24542ms |
| 4 | `43dc9778…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 17 | 6/10 | 27585ms |
| 5 | `ee09d943…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 18 | 4/10 | 21009ms |
| 6 | `f84ea6ac…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 1 | 2/10 | 43755ms |
| 7 | `a328feea…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 18025ms |
| 8 | `27e8912c…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 6 | 6/10 | 30942ms |
| 9 | `17111c03…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 35280ms |
| 10 | `c44e9b62…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 7 | 5/10 | 30978ms |
| 11 | `99ac6944…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 6 | 6/10 | 40185ms |
| 12 | `f9a1c16c…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 33839ms |
| 13 | `38889c3b…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 348422ms |
| 14 | `ff85ee58…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 3/10 | 31410ms |
| 15 | `4b894ae3…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 3/10 | 23616ms |
| 16 | `1b1ade2d…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 29016ms |
| 17 | `93b336f3…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 34724ms |
| 18 | `15ddd28d…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 39270ms |
| 19 | `24d1e93f…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 26409ms |
| 20 | `05389f78…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 34999ms |
| 21 | `575f8679…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 24084ms |
| 22 | `a74ead3b…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 21642ms |
| 23 | `bbe0a93b…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 6 | 7/10 | 28342ms |
| 24 | `85d95ce5…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 5 | 3/10 | 27276ms |
| 25 | `76d10872…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 5 | 8/10 | 17356ms |
| 26 | `36d567ba…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 23741ms |
| 27 | `7bbfcfe9…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 19525ms |
| 28 | `2696757c…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 22389ms |
| 29 | `dfb4e0cd…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 13493ms |
| 30 | `4c18ebae…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 27828ms |
| 31 | `cebf301e…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 26885ms |
| 32 | `c2e8f271…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 24226ms |
| 33 | `2ea2e5b5…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | Yes | 6 | 5/10 | 19511ms |
| 34 | `c357f0e2…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 21165ms |
| 35 | `a45bc83b…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 6 | 8/10 | 26836ms |
| 36 | `a10ec48c…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 23445ms |
| 37 | `fccaa4a1…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 8 | 6/10 | 28338ms |
| 38 | `f5d428fd…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 9 | 7/10 | 30808ms |
| 39 | `2fa8e956…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 29925ms |
| 40 | `0e4fe8cd…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 30468ms |
| 41 | `a0ef404e…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 23832ms |
| 42 | `b7a5912e…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 19427ms |
| 43 | `aa071045…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 5/10 | 16270ms |
| 44 | `476db143…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 6 | 8/10 | 22727ms |
| 45 | `61f546a8…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 17345ms |
| 46 | `f3351922…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 20509ms |
| 47 | `61717508…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 24889ms |
| 48 | `0ed38524…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 18310ms |
| 49 | `87da214f…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 22596ms |
| 50 | `d025a41c…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 19218ms |
| 51 | `401a07f1…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 28703ms |
| 52 | `afe56d05…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 47139ms |
| 53 | `9a8c8e28…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 6 | 6/10 | 46043ms |
| 54 | `3a4c347c…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 27676ms |
| 55 | `ec2fccc9…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 38995ms |
| 56 | `8c8fc328…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 16870ms |
| 57 | `e222075d…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 6 | 4/10 | 34079ms |
| 58 | `c94452e4…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 4/10 | 34524ms |
| 59 | `75401f7c…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 4/10 | 36776ms |
| 60 | `a941b6d8…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 3/10 | 30821ms |
| 61 | `8079e27d…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 24645ms |
| 62 | `e21cd746…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 28832ms |
| 63 | `9e8607e7…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 30531ms |
| 64 | `c7d83f01…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 56326ms |
| 65 | `46b34f78…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 38053ms |
| 66 | `a1963a68…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 35755ms |
| 67 | `5f6c57dd…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 3/10 | 22164ms |
| 68 | `b39a5aa7…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 5/10 | 24862ms |
| 69 | `b78fd844…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 36589ms |
| 70 | `4520f882…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 22306ms |
| 71 | `ec591973…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 17845ms |
| 72 | `62f04c2f…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 21694ms |
| 73 | `3f821c2d…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 22340ms |
| 74 | `e996036e…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 20087ms |
| 75 | `327fbc21…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 23968ms |
| 76 | `6dcae3f5…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 29031ms |
| 77 | `1aecc095…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 34577ms |
| 78 | `0353ee0c…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 2/10 | 37131ms |
| 79 | `40a8c4b1…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 5/10 | 21467ms |
| 80 | `4d1a8410…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 11 | 4/10 | 26324ms |
| 81 | `8c823e32…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 30811ms |
| 82 | `eb54f575…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 24576ms |
| 83 | `11e1b169…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 24000ms |
| 84 | `a95a5829…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 29537ms |
| 85 | `22c0809b…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 26647ms |
| 86 | `bf68f2ad…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 19792ms |
| 87 | `efca245f…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 3/10 | 24546ms |
| 88 | `9e39df84…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 28665ms |
| 89 | `68d8d901…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 29283ms |
| 90 | `1752cb53…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 6 | 5/10 | 16542ms |
| 91 | `bd72994f…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 36157ms |
| 92 | `211d0093…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 15330ms |
| 93 | `d4525420…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 14295ms |
| 94 | `45c6237b…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 21181ms |
| 95 | `cecac8f9…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 6 | 7/10 | 28096ms |
| 96 | `8f9e8bcd…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 26520ms |
| 97 | `0fad6023…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 24068ms |
| 98 | `02314fc6…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 22596ms |
| 99 | `4d61a19a…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 8/10 | 27449ms |
| 100 | `6436ff9e…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 28076ms |
| 101 | `8a7b6fca…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 23494ms |
| 102 | `40a99a31…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 29720ms |
| 103 | `b9665ca1…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 3 | 3/10 | 27893ms |
| 104 | `c6269101…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 32430ms |
| 105 | `be830ca0…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 8 | 6/10 | 47921ms |
| 106 | `cd9efc18…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 30306ms |
| 107 | `a97369c7…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 35188ms |
| 108 | `3f625cb2…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 26450ms |
| 109 | `aad21e4c…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 29547ms |
| 110 | `8314d1b1…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 42275ms |
| 111 | `5e2b6aab…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 5 | 7/10 | 42318ms |
| 112 | `46fc494e…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 6 | 5/10 | 56674ms |
| 113 | `3940b7e7…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 52600ms |
| 114 | `8077e700…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 52161ms |
| 115 | `5a2d70da…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 43959ms |
| 116 | `74d6e8b0…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 25249ms |
| 117 | `81db15ff…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 18556ms |
| 118 | `61b0946a…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 27780ms |
| 119 | `61e7b9c6…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 20870ms |
| 120 | `c9bf9801…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 24603ms |
| 121 | `f1be6436…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 5 | 3/10 | 32700ms |
| 122 | `41f6ef59…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 20478ms |
| 123 | `a0552909…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | Yes | 8 | 8/10 | 28784ms |
| 124 | `6d2c8e55…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 13 | 3/10 | 29755ms |
| 125 | `4b98ccce…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 7 | 7/10 | 34063ms |
| 126 | `60221cd0…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 29503ms |
| 127 | `ef8719da…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 32740ms |
| 128 | `3baa0009…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 25268ms |
| 129 | `5d0feb24…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 32334ms |
| 130 | `6974adea…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 8 | 4/10 | 47992ms |
| 131 | `1a78e076…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 43329ms |
| 132 | `1b9ec237…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 29048ms |
| 133 | `0112fc9b…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 21931ms |
| 134 | `772e7524…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 23998ms |
| 135 | `e6429658…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 4 | 8/10 | 32471ms |
| 136 | `b5d2e6f1…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 24236ms |
| 137 | `f841ddcf…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 24165ms |
| 138 | `47ef842d…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 19771ms |
| 139 | `1137e2bb…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 22083ms |
| 140 | `c3525d4d…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 5 | 4/10 | 24734ms |
| 141 | `9a0d8d36…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 34298ms |
| 142 | `664a42e5…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 34452ms |
| 143 | `feb5eefc…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 29652ms |
| 144 | `3600de06…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 34985ms |
| 145 | `c657103b…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 44241ms |
| 146 | `ae0c1093…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 4 | 8/10 | 25144ms |
| 147 | `f9f82549…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 19731ms |
| 148 | `57b2cdf2…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 4 | 8/10 | 25141ms |
| 149 | `84322284…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 5 | 8/10 | 27340ms |
| 150 | `a46d5cd2…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 6 | 8/10 | 38082ms |
| 151 | `6241e678…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 35424ms |
| 152 | `e14e32ba…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 27603ms |
| 153 | `b1a79ce1…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 24634ms |
| 154 | `e4f664ea…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 28342ms |
| 155 | `a079d38f…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 19986ms |
| 156 | `02aa1805…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 20440ms |
| 157 | `fd6129bd…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 31888ms |
| 158 | `ce864f41…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 22781ms |
| 159 | `58ac1cc5…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 8 | 7/10 | 27170ms |
| 160 | `3c19c6d1…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | Yes | 5 | 4/10 | 26587ms |
| 161 | `a99d85fc…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 33805ms |
| 162 | `55ddb773…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 24080ms |
| 163 | `1e5a1d7f…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 21320ms |
| 164 | `0419f1c3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 38035ms |
| 165 | `ed2bc14c…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 32390ms |
| 166 | `46bc7238…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 9 | 8/10 | 36284ms |
| 167 | `2d06bc0a…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 39197ms |
| 168 | `fd3ad420…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 25072ms |
| 169 | `0818571f…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 13 | 6/10 | 36691ms |
| 170 | `6074bba3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 5 | 3/10 | 24274ms |
| 171 | `5ad0c554…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 24911ms |
| 172 | `11593a50…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 6 | 3/10 | 40570ms |
| 173 | `94925f49…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 6 | 6/10 | 43811ms |
| 174 | `90f37ff3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 19575ms |
| 175 | `d3d255b2…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 33156ms |
| 176 | `403b9234…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 28049ms |
| 177 | `1bff4551…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 33835ms |
| 178 | `650adcb1…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 43917ms |
| 179 | `01d7e53e…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 6/10 | 39915ms |
| 180 | `a73fbc98…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | Yes | 5 | 6/10 | 29335ms |
| 181 | `0ec25916…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 20850ms |
| 182 | `116e791e…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 26499ms |
| 183 | `dd724c67…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 25444ms |
| 184 | `7151c60a…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 21231ms |
| 185 | `90edba97…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 7 | 3/10 | 18206ms |
| 186 | `91060ff0…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 27218ms |
| 187 | `8384083a…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 17172ms |
| 188 | `045aba2e…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 17643ms |
| 189 | `f2986c1f…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 12837ms |
| 190 | `ffed32d8…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 24187ms |
| 191 | `b3573f20…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 17396ms |
| 192 | `a69be28f…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 27037ms |
| 193 | `788d2bc6…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 8 | 6/10 | 28890ms |
| 194 | `74ed1dc7…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 22347ms |
| 195 | `69a8ef86…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 25224ms |
| 196 | `ab81b076…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 5 | 8/10 | 29369ms |
| 197 | `d7cfae6f…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 5/10 | 27825ms |
| 198 | `19403010…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 21806ms |
| 199 | `7ed932dd…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 21181ms |
| 200 | `105f8ad0…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 23290ms |
| 201 | `b57efde3…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 28090ms |
| 202 | `15d37511…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 35258ms |
| 203 | `bb863dd9…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 29278ms |
| 204 | `fe0d3941…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 5 | 8/10 | 31670ms |
| 205 | `6a900a40…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 6 | 6/10 | 29762ms |
| 206 | `9efbcd35…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 24341ms |
| 207 | `1d4672c8…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 6/10 | 24935ms |
| 208 | `4de6a529…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 29222ms |
| 209 | `4c4dc603…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 23694ms |
| 210 | `bb499d9c…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 4 | 8/10 | 27114ms |
| 211 | `5349dd7b…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 18182ms |
| 212 | `a4a9195c…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 24109ms |
| 213 | `552b7dd0…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 20922ms |
| 214 | `11dcc268…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 16237ms |
| 215 | `76418a2c…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 6/10 | 15489ms |
| 216 | `0e386e32…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 17495ms |
| 217 | `7de33b48…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 3/10 | 26327ms |
| 218 | `854f3814…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 17458ms |
| 219 | `4122f866…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 32928ms |
| 220 | `2c249e0f…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 24410ms |

## QA Issues

### ✅ `83d10b06…` — score 7/10
- Calculated sample size is not rounded to a whole number.
- QoQ variance is blank for rows with zero prior-quarter values.
- No explicit evidence that all specified entities and metrics A1 and C1 were sampled.
  > 💡 Round the sample size, define variance treatment for zero values, and explicitly confirm criteria coverage.

### ❌ `7b08cd4d…` — score 3/10
- Revenue by tour stop is not populated and total net revenue is zero.
- Expenses lack breakdown by source and required category totals.
- Net income calculation and combined columns are missing.
  > 💡 Populate all revenue and expense data from references, add source breakdowns, totals, and net income calculations.

### ❌ `7d7fc9a7…` — score 4/10
- Response describes intent rather than delivered analytical results.
- No evidence the Excel schedules reconcile to provided GL balances.
- Summary tab figures and amortization details are not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Include concrete results and reconciliation proof from the Excel workbook.

### ✅ `43dc9778…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes intent rather than completed tax return results.
- No explicit confirmation of all required schedules included in the 1040 PDF.
- Nonstandard CONFIDENCE tag included without QA relevance.
  > 💡 Provide a clear summary of completed forms and confirm all required schedules are included in the PDF.

### ❌ `ee09d943…` — score 4/10
- Response describes intent but lacks evidence of completed April updates.
- Missing required source file AP_TB-1.xlsx among produced files.
- No confirmation of tab accuracy, calculations, or documented improvements.
  > 💡 Provide a validated workbook summary confirming tab updates, source reconciliation, and included files.

### ❌ `f84ea6ac…` — score 2/10
- Word document lacks the required comparison table.
- No five academic articles or study details are included.
- Claims in text response do not match actual file content.
  > 💡 Populate the Word document with a one-page table summarizing five qualifying studies.

### ✅ `a328feea…` — score 9/10
- No backup contact identified if supervisor or team lead is unreachable.
- Policy does not specify consequences for noncompliance.
  > 💡 Add a backup reporting contact and outline consequences for failing to follow procedures.

### ✅ `27e8912c…` — score 6/10
- Organizational Action Items document lacks the required tracking table and resolution fields.
- Checklist PDF appendix references images but does not include the images.
- NIH source is cited but the actual URL is not included in documents.
  > 💡 Add the missing table and embed images and source links to fully meet requirements.

### ✅ `17111c03…` — score 8/10
- Text response summarizes deliverables instead of presenting memo content.
- Memo lacks a specific manager name in the From or signature line.
  > 💡 Include the full memo text in the response and add a named manager signature for completeness.

### ✅ `c44e9b62…` — score 5/10
- Revised organizational chart is a summary table, not an adjusted visual org chart.
- FTE reduction calculations and confirmation of minimum 4% are not demonstrated.
- Updated FTE Excel content is not evidenced or validated against requirements.
  > 💡 Provide a true revised org chart with highlighted positions and clearly demonstrate verified 4% FTE reductions.

### ✅ `99ac6944…` — score 6/10
- Mixer lacks true onboard compression; requires external inserts not included.
- PDF omits embedded PNG image of Excel cost breakdown on last page.
- Vocal processing details insufficiently specify independent reverb and delay per mix.
  > 💡 Revise mixer choice or add compressors, and update PDF with required images and clearer mix processing details.

### ✅ `f9a1c16c…` — score 7/10
- PDF input/output list omits explicit FOH destinations for vocal XLR splits.
- Drummer wedge orientation at 10 o’clock is not explicitly indicated.
- Amps and DI boxes are not clearly labeled in the visible PDF preview.
  > 💡 Add explicit FOH split labels and clearer positional annotations for wedges, amps, and DI boxes.

### ❌ `38889c3b…` — score 3/10
- Instrumental audio is placeholder, not an actual produced track.
- No evidence of real musical content synchronized to the drum reference.
- Creative and sonic requirements were deferred instead of executed.
  > 💡 Deliver fully produced audio stems and master that meet all musical and technical specifications.

### ❌ `ff85ee58…` — score 3/10
- Required final 24-bit 48 kHz audio mix file was not delivered.
- Sax resync, editing, and effects were not actually performed on audio.
- Loudness targets were not measured or demonstrated.
  > 💡 Provide the actual mixed WAV file meeting sync, processing, and loudness specifications.

### ❌ `4b894ae3…` — score 3/10
- No edited bass audio or final stereo WAV mix was delivered.
- Provided mix is a placeholder duplicating the rough mix.
- Required 48k/24b WAV file was not produced.
  > 💡 Perform actual bass edits and deliver the specified 48k/24b stereo WAV mix.

### ✅ `1b1ade2d…` — score 8/10
- Text response is framed as an execution plan rather than a concise outcome summary.
- Text response adds a confidence tag not requested in the task.
  > 💡 Align the text response to briefly summarize delivered content and outcomes instead of intent.

### ✅ `93b336f3…` — score 5/10
- INR cost and savings calculations are missing or insufficiently detailed.
- Annual and five-year savings at 110K volume are not quantified.
- Unrequested 49:51 ownership structure was assumed without justification.
  > 💡 Add detailed INR cost tables with annual and five-year savings and remove unsupported partnership assumptions.

### ✅ `15ddd28d…` — score 8/10
- Executive summary section is not explicitly labeled for senior leadership.
  > 💡 Add a one-page executive summary with decisions, risks, and immediate actions upfront.

### ❌ `24d1e93f…` — score 4/10
- Missing required summary comparison and assumptions sheets.
- NPV incorrectly based on revenues instead of total costs.
- Tooling amortization not spread across first 100,000 sets as specified.
  > 💡 Rework the workbook to model cost-based cash flows, correct amortization logic, and add summary and assumptions sheets.

### ✅ `05389f78…` — score 5/10
- Quotation file lacks cost figures, preventing INR calculations and comparative analysis.
- CPO report cannot present required cost comparisons due to missing quotation data.
- Termination email does not explicitly address design head and relationship manager.
  > 💡 Include complete vendor cost data in INR and update documents with explicit addressees and full analysis.

### ✅ `575f8679…` — score 9/10
- Appendix instrument summaries could include more sample items or scoring details.
  > 💡 Expand the appendix with brief sample questions and scoring guidance for each instrument.

### ✅ `a74ead3b…` — score 6/10
- Content admits not following manual closely as required.
- Manual sources were not accessed despite explicit links provided.
- Verification of required slides is unclear without content preview.
  > 💡 Revise presentations to closely align with the specified manual content and explicitly reflect required session elements.

### ✅ `bbe0a93b…` — score 7/10
- Resource guide omits requested categories like financial assistance, clothing, counseling, and pregnancy support.
- Spanish follow-up table column labels are malformed and do not clearly show three columns.
- Needs assessment tables lack explicit Yes/No checkboxes or markers.
  > 💡 Expand resource guide categories and correct Spanish table headers to clearly match required three-column formats.

### ❌ `85d95ce5…` — score 3/10
- Report length is 5 pages, below the required 8–15 pages.
- School name and social worker fields were filled instead of using placeholders or leaving blank.
- Document contains unresolved placeholders and duplicated referral text.
  > 💡 Revise the report to meet length requirements, correct placeholders, and ensure all fields follow instructions.

### ✅ `76d10872…` — score 8/10
- Report content cannot be verified because the PDF preview is not provided.
  > 💡 Include a brief content summary or excerpt from the generated report for verification.

### ✅ `36d567ba…` — score 8/10
- Topic 8 cites Uniform Guidance generally rather than a specific applicable section.
  > 💡 Add a specific 2 C.F.R. Part 200 section citation to Topic 8 for consistency.

### ✅ `7bbfcfe9…` — score 8/10
- Some §3919 questions assess policies or training rather than account-level compliance.
- One §3919 citation subsection may not precisely match the credit reporting concept.
  > 💡 Align all §3919 questions more tightly to individual account evidence and verify subsection citations.

### ✅ `2696757c…` — score 7/10
- An extra DOCX file was produced despite the single PDF requirement.
- Test questions are overly generic and not tightly aligned to specific paragraph language.
- References to court approvals may exceed explicit handbook requirements.
  > 💡 Limit deliverables to one PDF and align questions more precisely to cited handbook provisions.

### ✅ `dfb4e0cd…` — score 8/10
- Text response describes intent more than completed analysis details.
  > 💡 Briefly summarize calculation methods and confirmation of criteria application in the narrative.

### ✅ `4c18ebae…` — score 7/10
- An extra Excel file was produced beyond the two stated deliverables.
- SAR narrative conclusion appears truncated or incomplete.
- Output text references confidence score not requested in task.
  > 💡 Remove extraneous files and ensure the SAR narrative is complete and finalized.

### ✅ `cebf301e…` — score 8/10
- Minor typo and truncation in integration section.
- Authentication flow lacks detailed TOTP implementation specifics.
- No explicit discussion of mobile performance considerations.
  > 💡 Add deeper implementation details for authentication, mobile performance, and polish minor document errors.

### ✅ `c2e8f271…` — score 8/10
- Commit message standards section appears truncated or incomplete.
- No explicit guidance on CI enforcement of standards.
  > 💡 Review and complete the commit message section and add brief CI enforcement guidance.

### ✅ `2ea2e5b5…` — score 5/10
- Output does not explicitly provide required activity classifications for margin, time sensitivity, and strategy.
- Analysis results are not shown or validated against provided classification rules.
- Presentation content is described but not evidenced against task requirements.
  > 💡 Include explicit tables mapping each activity to margin impact, time sensitivity, and strategic level.

### ✅ `c357f0e2…` — score 5/10
- Test cases count is only 56, below the required 80–100.
- Column headers do not match the provided UAT template exactly.
- Coverage appears limited with insufficient depth across all modules and edge cases.
  > 💡 Expand to 80–100 test cases and align columns exactly with the UAT template.

### ✅ `a45bc83b…` — score 8/10
- Cloud Armor is inaccurately described as providing Layer 3/4 DDoS protection.
- Architecture summary orders Cloud Armor before DNS, which is technically incorrect.
- Diagram lacks explicit multi-region GKE failover details.
  > 💡 Clarify security layer responsibilities and explicitly document multi-region high-availability behavior.

### ❌ `a10ec48c…` — score 3/10
- Document lacks required tables with five specified columns and rows.
- No restaurant listings, hours, descriptions, directions, or categories included.
- Sources from DowntownSarasota.com and Google Maps not evidenced.
  > 💡 Populate the document with complete, sourced tables for each cuisine category including all required details.

### ✅ `fccaa4a1…` — score 6/10
- PDF is three pages, not the requested two-page itinerary length.
- Tour operator description lacks specific sourced details from TakeWalks.com.
- Age requirement states 2–14, conflicting with the 16-year-old participant.
  > 💡 Revise page length, correct age requirements, and add sourced TakeWalks.com details.

### ✅ `f5d428fd…` — score 7/10
- PDF exceeds required two-page length.
- Royalty-free image sources are not cited or verified.
- No research references or sources are explicitly documented.
  > 💡 Condense to two pages and add clear image credits and destination research citations.

### ❌ `2fa8e956…` — score 4/10
- Did not list all wineries within a one-hour drive, only a small curated subset.
- Required formatting not met: grape varieties not purple and Georgia fonts not evident.
- Footer titled 'Napa Valley Wineries' is missing from the document.
  > 💡 Expand to a comprehensive winery list and strictly apply all specified formatting and footer requirements.

### ✅ `0e4fe8cd…` — score 6/10
- Missing June 4 return-day tab and itinerary.
- Return travel home logistics are not documented.
- Several providers are unverified or noted as alternatives.
  > 💡 Add a complete June 4 return itinerary with fully verified providers and door-to-door logistics.

### ✅ `b7a5912e…` — score 6/10
- Payment method revenue totals do not reconcile with total revenue.
- Booking source revenue totals account for only half of reported total revenue.
- Text response lacks a summary of actual results and insights.
  > 💡 Reconcile revenue totals across all summaries and align the narrative with the actual report results.

### ✅ `aa071045…` — score 5/10
- Service request form lacks required vehicle, customer, damage, request type, and status details.
- Damage revenue totals and breakdowns do not reconcile with source data.
- Operational conclusions are generic and not clearly data-driven.
  > 💡 Ensure documents contain complete required fields and validate all calculations against the source dataset.

### ✅ `476db143…` — score 8/10
- Email is generic and not personalized per resident or unit.
- Email states 9/23 for all, conflicting with adjusted inspection dates.
- Email PDF lacks contact details or inspection time window.
  > 💡 Personalize the email per resident and reflect confirmed inspection dates and contact information.

### ✅ `61f546a8…` — score 6/10
- On-site staff are scheduled on a Sunday, violating Mon–Fri work rules.
- Refrigerator delivery does not include an extra installation day as required.
- Some make-ready date changes are not clearly justified against availability data.
  > 💡 Revise the schedule to respect weekday staffing, appliance timelines, and explicitly align make-ready changes.

### ✅ `f3351922…` — score 7/10
- Email ends abruptly with an incomplete sentence.
- Client name placeholder remains unfilled.
- Missing key military-specific details like CZTE and vesting rules.
  > 💡 Complete the email, personalize it, and add key military transition benefits for accuracy.

### ✅ `61717508…` — score 6/10
- Training deck is only two pages, not approximately ten as required.
- Training deck content appears truncated and may not fully explain Senior Safe Act and FINRA 2165.
- Escalation guidance is mostly separate, not clearly summarized within the deck.
  > 💡 Expand the training deck to around ten complete pages with fuller rule explanations and integrated escalation steps.

### ✅ `0ed38524…` — score 6/10
- District summary PDF exceeds one-page requirement.
- Duplicate and inconsistent 'General' category labels appear.
- Talking points text contains truncated sentences.
  > 💡 Condense the summary to one page and clean category labels and formatting errors.

### ✅ `87da214f…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing actual findings.
- Financial impact figures and percentages are not stated in the text response.
- Review conclusions are not explicitly tied to policy language in the narrative.
  > 💡 Add a concise written summary of findings with key numbers and conclusions in the text response.

### ✅ `d025a41c…` — score 6/10
- Produced extra Case One, Two, and Three documents not requested.
- Requirement specified a single Word document only.
- Text response describes intent instead of summarizing completed work.
  > 💡 Deliver only one properly formatted Case Feedback.docx and remove all extra files.

### ✅ `401a07f1…` — score 6/10
- Editorial lacks explicit hyperlinks to referenced news stories.
- Requirement to include reference links within copy is unmet.
  > 💡 Add direct hyperlinks to specific Nature, Science, Scientific American, and Guardian articles.

### ✅ `afe56d05…` — score 8/10
- Exact 2,200–2,300 word length cannot be verified from preview alone.
  > 💡 Confirm final word count and ensure all sections include cited hyperlinks to listed sources.

### ✅ `9a8c8e28…` — score 6/10
- Framework guide bibliography is minimal and lacks linked, in-depth further reading.
- Editorial checklist shows truncated text and a visible typo.
- Quiz content, answer explanations, and scoring guide are not evidenced in preview.
  > 💡 Expand references, fix checklist errors, and clearly verify full quiz questions, answers, and scoring.

### ✅ `3a4c347c…` — score 8/10
- Six-page document limit is not explicitly confirmed.
- Frequency of VT, radio, and podcast outputs per week is slightly ambiguous.
- Explicit citation of the boilerplate reference is minimal.
  > 💡 Add a brief compliance note confirming page length and weekly multimedia deliverables.

### ✅ `ec2fccc9…` — score 7/10
- Secondary keywords list is not clearly presented after the article.
- Pull quote caption is not clearly labeled at the bottom.
- Word count may not meet the 1,500 ±10% requirement.
  > 💡 Add an explicit secondary keyword list, a labeled pull quote caption, and verify final word count.

### ❌ `e222075d…` — score 4/10
- No 30-second H.264 MP4 export was delivered as required.
- Stock footage and music links are placeholders, not direct preview URLs.
- Music selection and edit were not actually produced or timed.
  > 💡 Provide a real 30-second MP4 edit with actual preview media links and timed music.

### ❌ `c94452e4…` — score 4/10
- No 15-second MP4 video was produced or exported.
- Deliverables substitute planning documents for the required finished broadcast spot.
- Stock footage and music were not actually selected or edited.
  > 💡 Produce and deliver the actual 15-second H.264 video using specified stock footage, supers, and music.

### ❌ `75401f7c…` — score 4/10
- Final edited MP4 showreel was not delivered as required.
- EDL uses placeholder clip names instead of exact provided filenames.
- Total EDL duration likely exceeds the 01:20 maximum.
  > 💡 Render and deliver the final 01:20 MP4 using exact source files, audio rules, and export specifications.

### ❌ `a941b6d8…` — score 3/10
- No final composited MP4 video was produced.
- Required stabilization, masking, tracking, and compositing were not executed.
- Smoke and flash effects were not actually integrated into footage.
  > 💡 Deliver the completed teleportation shot as an MP4 matching the base clip specifications.

### ❌ `8079e27d…` — score 3/10
- Uses illustrative placeholder data instead of real publicly sourced market data.
- Covers only five companies, not all 500 S&P 500 constituents.
- Does not fully meet requirement for comprehensive sub-sector coverage.
  > 💡 Populate the workbook with complete S&P 500 data sourced from public market datasets.

### ✅ `e21cd746…` — score 7/10
- Some private targets lack complete fields for investors, funding, or customers.
- Valuations and multiples are presented without explicit source citations.
- Roadie is included despite being a UPS subsidiary, limiting M&A relevance.
  > 💡 Add consistent data fields and sources for all private targets and refine the list to independent acquisition candidates.

### ✅ `9e8607e7…` — score 7/10
- Presentation length is 23 slides, below the requested ~30 slides.
- Text response is generic and does not summarize key insights or themes.
- Limited explicit guidance on structuring operating versus investing entities.
  > 💡 Expand the deck to ~30 slides with clearer entity-setup considerations and summarized takeaways.

### ❌ `c7d83f01…` — score 4/10
- Python notebook with implemented pricing methods is missing.
- No documented code or implementation details are provided.
- Convergence analysis plots are absent despite being required.
  > 💡 Deliver a complete Python notebook implementing all methods with documented code and required visualizations.

### ✅ `46b34f78…` — score 6/10
- Bond analysis uses generic issuers instead of specific named oil and gas companies.
- Report lacks concrete quantitative metrics and explicit use of referenced public data.
- Trading strategy recommendations are high-level and not trade-specific.
  > 💡 Include named issuers with data-driven bond metrics and explicit, actionable trade ideas.

### ✅ `a1963a68…` — score 6/10
- Future-proofing innovation and sustainability pathways are not clearly presented.
- Robust data, citations, and explicit use of public Korean sources are missing.
- Core slide structure and count versus requirements are unclear.
  > 💡 Add a dedicated future-proofing slide with data-backed initiatives and clearly label core slides.

### ❌ `5f6c57dd…` — score 3/10
- Most worksheets contain placeholders without calculations or populated financial results.
- Required branch rankings, regional comparison, and efficiency metrics sheets are missing or incomplete.
- Dropdown functionality and aggregation logic are not implemented or verifiable.
  > 💡 Fully build all five worksheets with formulas, populated results, and validated dropdown-driven branch aggregation.

### ✅ `b39a5aa7…` — score 5/10
- Summary omits titled positions/principal pay and other compensation types from assumptions.
- Inputs allow only a single growth rate, not all negotiable CBA drivers.
- YoY growth calculations are incorrect or missing meaningful values.
  > 💡 Expand pay types, add comprehensive driver inputs, and correct projection and YoY formulas.

### ✅ `b78fd844…` — score 8/10
- Text response is meta-level and lacks substantive analysis summary.
- Confidence tag is extraneous and not requested in deliverable.
  > 💡 Include a brief executive summary in the text response highlighting key conclusions.

### ✅ `4520f882…` — score 5/10
- Text response is high-level and lacks confirmation of specific CBA rule implementation.
- No evidence spreadsheet formulas reflect detailed premiums, doubling, or electronic instrument rules.
- Confidence tag and narrative tone are unprofessional for a deliverable response.
  > 💡 Provide a concise summary verifying how each CBA wage, premium, and conflict rule is implemented in the spreadsheet.

### ✅ `ec591973…` — score 6/10
- Text response is meta and lacks the actual strategy slide content.
- Unable to verify channel differentiation and challenge framing without slide preview.
- Inclusion of a confidence tag is unprofessional for executive deliverables.
  > 💡 Include a brief slide content summary and ensure visible alignment to all stated requirements.

### ✅ `62f04c2f…` — score 6/10
- Excel form lacks signature and date spaces for sales rep, GM, and Sales Manager.
- Excel form missing explicit restocking fee and prepaid freight acknowledgment note.
- Text response does not summarize or reference actual document content.
  > 💡 Add missing approval signature sections and required acknowledgment note to the Excel form.

### ❌ `3f821c2d…` — score 3/10
- Stock flow workbook lacks populated sales, receipts, turns, and working formulas.
- Omni aggregation, season turn calculation, and January EOM target validation are missing.
- Receipts plan does not demonstrate budget compliance or monthly minimum constraints.
  > 💡 Complete the Excel with populated data, formulas, omni totals, and validate all constraints and targets.

### ✅ `e996036e…` — score 6/10
- Cash flow timing analysis by payment terms is not shown.
- No visual chart included to compare scenario favorability.
- Shipment total used is $255,000, conflicting with $225,000 assumption.
  > 💡 Add cash flow timing tables, a comparison chart, and align shipment totals to stated assumptions.

### ✅ `6dcae3f5…` — score 5/10
- Benchmarks are not calculated separately for each PGY level as required.
- Yearly PGY intervals across 2021–2025 are not clearly compiled per resident.
- ACGME requirement numbers and PGY-met determinations are missing or incomplete.
  > 💡 Recalculate benchmarks per PGY and complete ACGME requirement mapping using the provided standards.

### ✅ `1aecc095…` — score 7/10
- Telehealth Roadmap lacks a Visio-style visual workflow and appears mostly textual.
- An extra unrequested file was produced beyond the named deliverables.
- Roadmap content does not clearly start from MA placing the call.
  > 💡 Convert the Roadmap into a clear visual flow diagram and remove unrequested files.

### ❌ `0353ee0c…` — score 2/10
- Did not compile or present any presumptive conditions, locations, or dates.
- Relied on placeholders instead of extracting content from Document B links.
- Delivered DOCX structure without required exhaustive, consolidated information.
  > 💡 Review each Document B link and populate the guide with complete, organized presumptive eligibility details before delivery.

### ✅ `40a8c4b1…` — score 5/10
- Workbook content not verified against scheduling priorities and conditions.
- February In‑Service Study Session placement not demonstrated or confirmed.
- Unused optional topics highlighting cannot be verified from provided summary.
  > 💡 Include a brief validation summary or screenshots confirming key required placements and highlights.

### ❌ `4d1a8410…` — score 4/10
- Master schedule lacks detailed table with room assignments, times, and applicant rotations.
- Lunch, breaks, tours, and buffer times are not explicitly scheduled.
- Sample itineraries omit specific times, interview order, and one-page completeness.
  > 💡 Provide a fully timed tabular schedule and detailed, time-specific one-page itineraries.

### ✅ `8c823e32…` — score 8/10
- Policy lacks explicit data retention and evidence management timelines.
- Vehicle pursuit guidance could include clearer termination and supervisory criteria.
  > 💡 Add a brief data management section and expand pursuit oversight language.

### ✅ `eb54f575…` — score 9/10
- Conclusion section contains a truncated word indicating a minor proofreading error.
  > 💡 Perform a final proofread to correct minor truncation or formatting issues.

### ✅ `11e1b169…` — score 7/10
- PDF is three pages instead of the required two pages.
  > 💡 Condense content and formatting to fit exactly two pages in the PDF.

### ✅ `a95a5829…` — score 8/10
- Chairman final approval conditions could be more explicitly defined.
  > 💡 Clarify when Chairman approval is mandatory versus conditional to improve authority transparency.

### ❌ `bf68f2ad…` — score 4/10
- Text response describes deliverables instead of providing the required summary content.
- Catch-up plan does not model reducing days or overtime after buffer achievement.
- Capacity assumptions are static and ignore five-day and four-day scenarios.
  > 💡 Revise the Excel and summary to include phased capacity reductions tied to buffer recovery.

### ❌ `efca245f…` — score 3/10
- Excel lacks open PO quantities and cumulative backlog tracking.
- Capacity upgrade, holidays, and grill guard weekly limits are not modeled.
- Scenario 3 violates no-overtime constraint with a 10-hour shift.
  > 💡 Revise Excel scenarios to fully model POs, constraints, priorities, and timelines per requirements.

### ✅ `68d8d901…` — score 7/10
- Text response does not confirm the plan achieves 250,000 pounds within four weeks.
- Extraneous reference files were reproduced instead of only delivering the requested Excel.
- Text response is high-level and lacks a brief results or throughput summary.
  > 💡 Add a concise summary confirming throughput calculations meet the four-week 250,000-pound target.

### ✅ `1752cb53…` — score 5/10
- Text response does not summarize actual planning results or key constraints compliance.
- No evidence provided that labor, changeover, and press rules were validated.
- Completed plan content is not reviewed or explained for accuracy.
  > 💡 Add a concise summary verifying all test rules and constraints are met in the completed plan.

### ✅ `bd72994f…` — score 6/10
- No specific luxury brand or official 2025 resort collection is identified.
- Looks are not sourced from an official website or lookbook as required.
- An extra PPTX file was produced but not requested.
  > 💡 Select a named luxury brand and build looks directly from its official 2025 resort lookbook.

### ✅ `d4525420…` — score 7/10
- Text response does not provide the required 5–7 sentence selection paragraph.
- Text response describes intent rather than delivering the decision.
- Primary content is only present in the attached document, not the response.
  > 💡 Include the actual selection paragraph directly in the text response in addition to the file.

### ✅ `45c6237b…` — score 6/10
- Next Season Assortment lacks required product images from ORDER LIST.pdf.
- Shirt quantities are not broken out by size per historical distribution.
- Summary table omits size-level SKU detail for shirts.
  > 💡 Include product images and add size-level shirt quantities to fully meet requirements.

### ✅ `cecac8f9…` — score 7/10
- Financial metrics use USD instead of GBP for a UK-based store.
- Team Launch Deck is brief and may lack full weekend coverage detail.
  > 💡 Convert all financials to GBP and expand deck content for multi-day Black Friday execution.

### ✅ `8f9e8bcd…` — score 9/10
- Minor grammatical error in the heading 'Core Strategies to Overcoming the Objection'.
  > 💡 Proofread headings and section titles for minor grammar and wording refinements.

### ✅ `0fad6023…` — score 6/10
- No visual representation of the full-service case or pan layout is provided.
- Total used versus remaining inches is not clearly calculated or displayed.
- Instructions reference features like inches remaining that are missing.
  > 💡 Add a visual pan layout with totals and remaining inches clearly shown for quick validation.

### ✅ `02314fc6…` — score 9/10
- Checklist lacks store identification fields such as store number and location.
- Scoring section does not define a numeric passing score or percentage.
  > 💡 Add store identification fields and a clear passing score threshold for consistency across locations.

### ✅ `4d61a19a…` — score 8/10
- Excel file does not show evidence of protected or locked Regional-only fields.
- PowerPoint content cannot be verified to confirm mock data sample inclusion.
  > 💡 Add visible sheet protection and confirm a slide showing a completed mock form sample.

### ✅ `6436ff9e…` — score 8/10
- Testimonials section appears to contain a truncated word, suggesting a minor formatting or typo issue.
  > 💡 Add a brief privacy consent statement and final review to ensure no truncation or formatting errors remain.

### ✅ `8a7b6fca…` — score 6/10
- PDF contains multiple broken words and typographical errors reducing professionalism.
- Lane labels and decision text are partially unreadable or poorly formatted.
- Visual clarity does not meet leadership-ready presentation standards.
  > 💡 Clean up typography, spacing, and lane labeling to ensure a polished, easily readable process map.

### ✅ `40a99a31…` — score 6/10
- Hardware selections lack specific make/models and safety standard certifications.
- Excel table appears incomplete for required quantities like six cameras and multiple mats.
- Report provides minimal justification and insufficient technical depth.
  > 💡 Add detailed models, quantities, standards compliance, and deeper integration justification across all deliverables.

### ❌ `b9665ca1…` — score 3/10
- PDF schematic is two pages instead of required single page.
- Schematic content lacks specified safety relay pin wiring and detailed connections.
- Required E-stop series/parallel configurations and wire labels are not evidenced.
  > 💡 Provide a single-page PDF schematic showing all specified pin connections, wiring labels, and configurations.

### ✅ `c6269101…` — score 6/10
- Text response lacks actual findings and conclusions.
- Greatest variability process is not explicitly identified.
- Capability metrics and stability results are not clearly evidenced.
  > 💡 Include explicit analytical results and conclusions within the presentation and summary text.

### ✅ `be830ca0…` — score 6/10
- Regression uses time-of-day data not clearly tied to required date range.
- Business-days-only constraint is not explicitly verified in analyses.
- Presentation claims results without summarizing key statistical conclusions.
  > 💡 Explicitly document data filters, business-day scope, and key statistical findings within the slides.

### ✅ `cd9efc18…` — score 6/10
- Guardianship appointments for minor children are missing.
- Temporary local guardian Michael T. Fisher is not included.
- Execution, witness, and notary signature blocks are not shown.
  > 💡 Add required guardianship provisions and complete execution and self-proving affidavit sections.

### ✅ `a97369c7…` — score 6/10
- Incorrectly states Moelis decision was by Delaware Supreme Court.
- Memo preview shows truncated sentence suggesting possible incomplete content.
- Analysis of SB 313 effects on stockholder appointment rights is underdeveloped.
  > 💡 Correct the Moelis court attribution, confirm memo completeness, and expand SB 313 statutory analysis.

### ✅ `3f625cb2…` — score 8/10
- Does not clearly explain COPPA lacks a private right of action.
- CCPA applicability to children and parents is somewhat oversimplified.
- DOCX file produced though only a PDF was requested.
  > 💡 Clarify enforcement limitations and refine California law analysis for greater legal precision.

### ✅ `aad21e4c…` — score 8/10
- Minor typographical error in information rights section.
  > 💡 Proofread the document carefully to correct minor typos and formatting issues.

### ✅ `8314d1b1…` — score 7/10
- Discussion of March 2025 DGCL amendments lacks specific statutory citations and detailed analysis.
- Memo date is March 2026, which may confuse timing relative to 2025 amendments.
- Recommendations section could be more explicit and clearly labeled.
  > 💡 Add a clearly labeled recommendations subsection with concrete steps tied to MFW and DGCL amendments.

### ✅ `5e2b6aab…` — score 7/10
- No explicit demonstration of tool-free battery replacement while wearing gloves.
- Thermal performance across -20°C to 40°C is not addressed in concept.
- Grip features and glove-operable switch lack clear specification in drawings.
  > 💡 Add brief notes or callouts addressing glove use, thermal strategy, and grip features.

### ✅ `46fc494e…` — score 5/10
- Back-face temperature of 25 C under 700 C heating is physically implausible.
- Node temperature profiles and full 22-node transient data are not provided.
- Specified timepoints include 0.5 minutes, but results show time zero instead.
  > 💡 Recompute the transient solution, validate boundary conditions, and include complete node-level results at required times.

### ✅ `3940b7e7…` — score 7/10
- Numerical results are explicitly labeled as preliminary placeholders.
- Boundary conditions lack specific inlet velocity and outlet pressure values.
- Field variable table omits individual velocity components.
  > 💡 Replace placeholders with actual CFD post-processing data and fully specify boundary conditions.

### ✅ `8077e700…` — score 6/10
- PDF lacks explicit Figures and Data description section.
- AISI 1045 results are discussed without presented data or graphs.
- Minor truncation/typo appears in the Conclusion section.
  > 💡 Add complete figures, tables, and a dedicated Figures and Data section with corrected text.

### ✅ `5a2d70da…` — score 7/10
- Master Tool List lacks subtotal, sales tax, and grand total calculations.
- Suffolk County sales tax rate is not identified or applied.
- Manufacturing steps are minimal and lack setup and inspection details.
  > 💡 Add cost summaries with tax, expand process steps, and resubmit updated Excel files.

### ✅ `74d6e8b0…` — score 6/10
- The guideline lacks clearly cited literature references supporting recommendations.
- No explicit reference list from menopause societies or reviews is visible.
- Dosing guidance appears high-level without detailed medication tables.
  > 💡 Add a formal references section with in-text citations and expand dosing details in tables.

### ❌ `81db15ff…` — score 4/10
- Virginia NP independent practice status is incorrect.
- Arizona PA supervision requirements are outdated or inaccurate.
- Several PA supervision caps likely vary or are eliminated by modern statutes.
  > 💡 Verify current state statutes and update scope-of-practice data before leadership decision-making.

### ✅ `61b0946a…` — score 6/10
- Original task requirements are incomplete and not clearly addressed end-to-end.
- Output adds assumptions and deliverables not explicitly requested.
- General Surgery-specific cadaver usage logistics are insufficiently detailed.
  > 💡 Clarify task scope and align deliverables strictly to stated requirements before adding assumptions.

### ✅ `61e7b9c6…` — score 5/10
- Formulary lacks common off-label menopause treatments like SSRIs, gabapentin, and clonidine.
- Recently FDA-approved nonhormonal therapy fezolinetant is missing.
- Spreadsheet contains blank rows and section headers reducing clarity and professionalism.
  > 💡 Add missing FDA-approved and common off-label therapies, clean formatting, and verify completeness against guidelines.

### ✅ `c9bf9801…` — score 6/10
- NCIPC Mentoring Program acknowledgment is missing from the guide credits.
- Required 4-month and 8-month evaluation form documents were not produced.
- Appendix appears incomplete and truncated, lacking clear evaluation references.
  > 💡 Add NCIPC credit, complete the appendix, and include separate 4- and 8-month evaluation Word forms.

### ❌ `f1be6436…` — score 3/10
- Uses placeholder screenshots instead of real, dated sources.
- Missing required cost coverage and discretionary fund calculations.
- Flight details ignore Dr. Doe’s early departure constraint.
  > 💡 Redo with real-time bookings, dated screenshots, complete calculations, and itinerary constraints applied.

### ✅ `41f6ef59…` — score 8/10
- Spreadsheet shows no visible dropdowns, checkboxes, or data validation controls.
- Subscription type options are not clearly constrained to all three plans.
- Email document includes a title line not intended for Zendesk macro body.
  > 💡 Add Excel data validation dropdowns and checkboxes and remove the email title line for cleaner macro use.

### ✅ `a0552909…` — score 8/10
- Email templates redundantly include a subject line header and a separate Subject field.
- Excel file content details were not explicitly summarized or validated in the text response.

### ❌ `6d2c8e55…` — score 3/10
- Articles are placeholders, not actual peer-reviewed open-access publications.
- Room scheduling and availability verification are not demonstrated or evidenced.
- Excel schedule lacks confirmed dates respecting spacing and holiday constraints.
  > 💡 Replace placeholders with real open-access articles and provide verified, documented scheduling details.

### ✅ `4b98ccce…` — score 7/10
- Excel sheet signatures with employee name and ID are not verified in preview.
- Use of employee name and ID from Employee Sheet is not confirmed.
- Text response includes unnecessary confidence tag not requested.
  > 💡 Verify Excel tables include proper signatures using Jane Croft, ID 700100912, and remove extraneous text.

### ✅ `60221cd0…` — score 6/10
- Primary election date appears incorrect for Virginia's legally defined June primary.
- Early voting start date is off by one day.
- An extra DOCX file was delivered despite PDF-only requirement.
  > 💡 Verify election dates against official sources and deliver only the specified PDF file.

### ✅ `ef8719da…` — score 8/10
- Text response includes unnecessary meta commentary instead of summarizing pitch.
- Document preview shows a truncated sentence near the end.
- Hyperlinks are not visible in the provided preview.
  > 💡 Tighten the response and ensure the document ends cleanly with clearly visible hyperlinks.

### ✅ `3baa0009…` — score 7/10
- Does not describe negative global growth; reports modestly positive growth instead.
- Article omits explicit 2024 global growth figure referenced by the chart.
- Chart lacks caption or in-article reference explaining the displayed projections.
  > 💡 Align narrative with task requirements by addressing negative growth and explicitly integrating chart data.

### ✅ `5d0feb24…` — score 6/10
- Editorial comments are repetitive and often non-specific.
- Some scientific details and timelines are not clearly verified or corrected.
- Several supporting references appear incomplete or truncated.
  > 💡 Provide more concrete, science-specific edits with complete citations tied directly to the arXiv study.

### ❌ `6974adea…` — score 4/10
- No article text provided in the response for inspection.
- Cannot verify word count, SEO headline, standfirst, or subheadings.
- Use of meta commentary instead of delivering the required journalistic content.
  > 💡 Provide the full 1,000–1,500 word feature article content for proper review.

### ✅ `1a78e076…` — score 5/10
- Document length appears far shorter than the required 10–15 pages.
- Prevalence, morbidity/mortality, and financial impact analyses are insufficiently detailed.
- Results and references sections appear incomplete or underdeveloped.
  > 💡 Expand the paper to full length with deeper data-driven analysis and a complete references section.

### ✅ `1b9ec237…` — score 6/10
- Cannot verify slide content due to unsupported PowerPoint preview.
- Pre-test question, case study, and AHA stages not confirmable.
- Speaker notes and references formatting not verifiable.
  > 💡 Provide a slide outline or PDF export to allow content verification.

### ✅ `0112fc9b…` — score 8/10
- Family history not documented in the SOAP note.
- Extraneous CONFIDENCE tag included in the text response.
- Cranial nerve documentation differs slightly from provided exam details.
  > 💡 Include full family history and align exam documentation exactly with provided findings.

### ✅ `e6429658…` — score 8/10
- AbbVie assistance application appears condensed versus full multi-page official form.
  > 💡 Ensure the full official AbbVie application pages are completed and included where applicable.

### ❌ `b5d2e6f1…` — score 4/10
- Sales by Brand tab with required pivot table and headers is missing.
- Sales by Store pivot table tab is not present in the file preview.
- No evidence of ST% calculations or grand totals in summary tabs.
  > 💡 Add both pivot table tabs with exact headers, calculated ST%, and grand totals as specified.

### ✅ `f841ddcf…` — score 7/10
- Slipped-to-July logic likely incorrect for POs with cancel dates outside June.
- Percent_of_Order_Shipped shown as decimals, not formatted percentages.
- Text response describes intent instead of summarizing results.
  > 💡 Validate slipped PO criteria strictly and refine presentation and narrative clarity.

### ✅ `47ef842d…` — score 5/10
- Weeks of Supply is infinite for all UPCs, indicating a calculation error.
- Weekly unit rate of sale values appear unrealistically low.
- Out-of-stock flag values are inconsistent, including truncated entries.
  > 💡 Recalculate sales rates and WOS with validated formulas and clean out-of-stock flag logic.

### ✅ `1137e2bb…` — score 7/10
- SKU summary table contains incomplete or truncated rows.
- Summary is not a pivot table with PO-level drill-down.
- Numeric precision artifacts appear in unit price fields.
  > 💡 Clean the summary table, format prices, and rebuild the SKU summary as a pivot with PO drill-down.

### ❌ `c3525d4d…` — score 4/10
- Final store list marks all stores as New without true original-to-final comparison.
- Removed and added stores are not explicitly identified or listed.
- Store-specific confirmations (e.g., 4099, 3737) are not addressed.
  > 💡 Rebuild the store comparison by accurately flagging added and removed stores against the original list.

### ✅ `9a0d8d36…` — score 8/10
- Vesting timeline and lack of taxation before vesting are not explicitly confirmed.
  > 💡 Explicitly add a slide clarifying no tax impact occurs until options vest and are exercised.

### ✅ `664a42e5…` — score 7/10
- Slide content cannot be verified from provided preview.
- Text response summarizes intent instead of substantive deliverable details.
- No confirmation of specific 2025 gift tax exclusion figures.
  > 💡 Include a slide-by-slide content summary with key data points to enable full QA verification.

### ✅ `feb5eefc…` — score 6/10
- PDF recommendation section is truncated and incomplete.
- Analysis lacks explicit discussion of 2015 estate tax exemption and rates.
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing substantive findings.
  > 💡 Complete and expand the PDF with a full recommendation and explicit estate tax context.

### ✅ `3600de06…` — score 6/10
- Slide content cannot be verified against required FINRA and NAIC talking points.
- No confirmation the presentation contains exactly ten slides.
- Lack of visible citations or sourcing verification from provided web links.
  > 💡 Provide a slide-by-slide summary confirming requirements, sources, and exact slide count.

### ✅ `c657103b…` — score 6/10
- Initial 2025 balance deviates from stated $3.5 million assumption.
- Excel lacks explicit Roth conversion amounts and detailed tax calculations by bracket.
- PowerPoint template and eight-slide requirement are not confirmed or evidenced.
  > 💡 Align assumptions to $3.5M, detail conversion and tax mechanics, and verify required slide count and template.

### ✅ `ae0c1093…` — score 8/10
- Observation form preview does not clearly show three solid lines under each header.
  > 💡 Verify and clearly render three solid handwritten lines beneath every header in the observation form PDF.

### ✅ `f9f82549…` — score 6/10
- PDF presents bullet points, not an actual flowchart diagram.
- PowerPoint content per flowchart header cannot be verified from preview.
- An unrequested DOCX file was produced.
  > 💡 Replace the PDF with a true flowchart and confirm one detailed PPT slide per header.

### ✅ `57b2cdf2…` — score 8/10
- Surveillance start time lists 7:25 p.m. despite stated 7:30 p.m. start.
- Surveillance ended at 1:20 a.m. beyond the requested 1:00 a.m. window.
  > 💡 Align reported times with stated surveillance parameters or briefly justify any deviations.

### ✅ `84322284…` — score 8/10
- Text response summarizes deliverable instead of presenting key findings.
- Confidence tag is unnecessary and unrequested.
- Method of PDF generation is irrelevant to task requirements.
  > 💡 Include a brief executive summary of findings within the text response.

### ✅ `a46d5cd2…` — score 8/10
- Photographs are referenced but not visibly embedded within the final PDF report.
- Conclusion section appears truncated in the preview, risking incomplete findings.
  > 💡 Embed key photographs directly in the PDF and ensure the conclusion is fully visible.

### ✅ `6241e678…` — score 6/10
- PDF date headers are garbled and difficult to read.
- Color-coding for phases and client tasks is not clearly indicated.
- Client two-day review periods are not clearly delineated per asset.
  > 💡 Clarify date labels, add a legend for color-coding, and explicitly mark client review durations.

### ✅ `e14e32ba…` — score 8/10
- Image fields link to websites, not actual photos of the establishments.
- Some business hours are vague or incomplete.
- Official websites are not clearly labeled as separate fields.
  > 💡 Add direct photo URLs, explicitly list websites, and standardize complete business hours for all entries.

### ✅ `e4f664ea…` — score 7/10
- Screenplay formatting compliance cannot be verified from the text response alone.
- Page count and scene count are not explicitly confirmed.
- Show-not-tell adherence is not demonstrated in the written response.
  > 💡 Include a brief excerpt or summary verifying formatting, page count, and scene structure.

### ❌ `a079d38f…` — score 4/10
- Excel sheet lacks detailed itemized labor hours and costs.
- Column names are invalid with empty headers.
- Time estimates per role are not clearly calculated.
  > 💡 Revise the Excel to include clear columns with itemized hours, rates, and totals per role.

### ❌ `02aa1805…` — score 3/10
- No Illinois EPA data was extracted or reviewed as required.
- Excel file contains no well records or screening results.
- Email provides no highlighted recommendations or viable well options.
  > 💡 Access IEPA factsheets, populate wells, screen per criteria, and recommend top viable options.

### ✅ `fd6129bd…` — score 8/10
- Change Request Form appears to be a template, not a completed example.
- Extra working session summary file was included without being requested.
  > 💡 Include a fully completed sample Change Request and clarify optional supporting artifacts.

### ✅ `ce864f41…` — score 6/10
- Summary provides no actual utilization results or conclusions.
- Excel tracker content and calculations are not evidenced in the response.
- Stakeholder Registry tab details are not validated against requirements.
  > 💡 Include concrete utilization metrics, flags, and project overruns directly referenced from the Excel tracker.

### ✅ `58ac1cc5…` — score 7/10
- Attached blank change control form is largely unfilled, not completed as requested.
- Internal summary was delivered as a PDF instead of MS Teams chat-ready text.
- Change control PDF summarizes change but does not fully use the provided form fields.
  > 💡 Complete the provided change control form fully and supply the internal summary as plain chat text.

### ❌ `3c19c6d1…` — score 4/10
- Response provides no actual slide content or summaries for required slides.
- Compliance with specific slide requirements and dates cannot be verified.
- Mentions external reference files not specified in the original task.
  > 💡 Include concise slide-by-slide content summaries confirming all required elements and dates are met.

### ✅ `a99d85fc…` — score 6/10
- Color-coding and editable light-blue input cells are not evident in the file preview.
- Notes sections and Gross Lease Value totals are not clearly visible for each scenario.
- Scenario separation and labeling across annual and monthly matrices lack clear visual distinction.
  > 💡 Add clear color-coding, visible Notes sections, and explicit Gross Lease Value totals for each scenario.

### ❌ `55ddb773…` — score 4/10
- Form does not list specific violations from the attached Violations Questions PDF.
- Violation sections use generic placeholders instead of required detailed questions.
- Architectural regulations are not individually listed as instructed.
  > 💡 Extract and explicitly reproduce all violation types and qualifying questions from the attached PDF.

### ❌ `1e5a1d7f…` — score 3/10
- The .docx lacks the required table and specified four columns.
- No weekly schedule tasks or time-of-day activities are included.
- Attached PM duties were not translated into a cyclical weekly schedule.
  > 💡 Create a .docx containing a complete table mapping PM duties by time, activity, details, and week.

### ✅ `0419f1c3…` — score 9/10
- Acknowledgement time performance was not quantified in the KPI summary section.
- Task volume metrics were not explicitly analyzed or compared to benchmarks.
  > 💡 Add quantified acknowledgement-time and task-volume analysis to strengthen data completeness.

### ✅ `ed2bc14c…` — score 8/10
- Exit survey categorization into five reasons is not fully documented.
- Tiered renewal offers lack specific pricing or percentage details.
  > 💡 Add a brief appendix summarizing full exit survey categorization and quantified renewal pricing.

### ✅ `46bc7238…` — score 8/10
- Flyer template page lacks clear placeholder contact details.
- Cold email script omits a professional signature example.
- Outreach cadence lacks a sample LinkedIn message.
  > 💡 Add concrete placeholders and examples to improve usability for junior agents.

### ✅ `2d06bc0a…` — score 8/10
- 1031 cooperation adds 'material burden' qualifier instead of 'no cost or burden'.
- Broker section appears truncated or contains a typographical cutoff.
- LOI expiration period is not visible in the provided preview.
  > 💡 Clarify expiration timing, correct minor wording deviations, and fix the broker section formatting.

### ✅ `fd3ad420…` — score 8/10
- Commission splits lack specific percentage ranges.
- Agent and Associate Broker splits are not clearly differentiated.
- State-specific compliance nuances are not explicitly addressed.
  > 💡 Add sample percentage ranges and brief state-specific compliance notes for clarity.

### ✅ `0818571f…` — score 6/10
- Listings are illustrative, not verified active Crexi or LoopNet listings from June 2025.
- No listing URLs or proof of current market availability provided.
- Photos and maps appear generic, not sourced from actual property listings.
  > 💡 Replace illustrative data with verified active listings including links, dates, and authentic marketing materials.

### ❌ `6074bba3…` — score 3/10
- CMA PDF contains extensive placeholder fields instead of actual market data.
- Comparable sales and active listings are missing despite being required.
- Graphs are referenced but not populated with supporting data.
  > 💡 Populate the CMA with real comps, pricing analysis, and finalized charts before delivery.

### ✅ `5ad0c554…` — score 6/10
- Brochure does not explicitly reference or identify items from the 132 Things Realtors Do list.
- Visuals are not embedded within the Word brochure content.
- Double-sided layout formatting is not clearly demonstrated.
  > 💡 Map specific brochure sections to cited items from the 132 Things list and embed visuals in a two-page layout.

### ❌ `11593a50…` — score 3/10
- Homes do not meet criteria: includes 3-bedroom listings and exactly 15 homes, not fewer.
- Properties appear fictional or incorrect: wrong ZIP, misspelled location, and not verified via MLSLI.
- PDF requirements unmet: booklet exceeds two pages, lacks photos, and map is schematic not pinned.
  > 💡 Use verified MLSLI data to select fewer than 15 qualifying homes and rebuild compliant two-page PDFs with real photos and a pinned map.

### ✅ `94925f49…` — score 6/10
- School metrics are estimates and not sourced from reputable sites like Niche as required.
- Home listings are sample placeholders, not verified active listings from MLSLI or similar.
- The response claims compliance despite explicitly noting offline data limitations.
  > 💡 Use live reputable sources to provide cited school data and verified active listings meeting criteria.

### ✅ `90f37ff3…` — score 6/10
- PDF is only two pages, not the required four pages.
- Comparable listings lack dates and source citations within past three years.
- DOCX market rent survey table is incomplete and lacks comparable details.
  > 💡 Expand to four pages with dated, sourced comparables and fully populated tables matching the template.

### ✅ `d3d255b2…` — score 9/10
- Text response summarizes intent instead of presenting report content directly.
  > 💡 Include a brief executive summary excerpt in the text response for completeness.

### ✅ `403b9234…` — score 6/10
- Slide count and required topics cannot be verified from the provided preview.
- Persuasive framing for a skeptical Advisory Board cannot be confirmed.
- No evidence each slide encourages discussion as required.
  > 💡 Include a slide outline or screenshots to verify content, slide count, and discussion prompts.

### ✅ `1bff4551…` — score 5/10
- Set list lacks evidence that most artists are represented in the Institute’s collection.
- "Rebel Rebel" is a Bowie song; attribution to Gary Clark Jr. is unclear.
- Original song has an incomplete YouTube link placeholder.
  > 💡 Verify collection holdings, correct song attribution, add missing link, and expand set to reach 45 minutes.

### ✅ `650adcb1…` — score 6/10
- Required color-coding key is not visible on the first Excel tab.
- Several days have only one intern scheduled despite two-intern coverage goal.
- Preview does not confirm all requested days off are correctly marked.
  > 💡 Add a visible legend key on the first tab and review coverage and request markings.

### ✅ `01d7e53e…` — score 6/10
- Agreement title appears truncated or misspelled in draft document.
- Unrelated Summer Fun facilities file included without relevance to RecFit agreement.
- Text response summarizes intent but does not present agreement content.
  > 💡 Correct document errors, remove unrelated files, and ensure all required terms are clearly verified in the draft.

### ✅ `a73fbc98…` — score 6/10
- Assigned vendor spreadsheet omits many vendors compared to original list.
- Electricity requirements were not clearly incorporated into table assignments.
- Product-type separation and adjacency requests are not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Ensure all vendors are assigned tables and explicitly address electricity and product placement constraints.

### ✅ `0ec25916…` — score 8/10
- Visible encoding artifacts (cid:127) appear throughout the document.
- Table structure is implied but not clearly delineated as two columns.
- Guiding points and prompts are inconsistently separated in some rows.
  > 💡 Clean encoding artifacts and clearly format a bordered two-column table for clarity.

### ✅ `116e791e…` — score 6/10
- PDF is three pages, not the required one-page care plan.
- Text response claims one-page PDF, which is inaccurate.
- Deliverable includes an unnecessary DOCX not requested.
  > 💡 Condense content to a single-page PDF matching the stated requirements.

### ❌ `dd724c67…` — score 3/10
- Facility list contains placeholders, not researched Long Island hospitals and rehabilitation facilities.
- Not all required facilities on Long Island are included.
- TFU guide lacks CMS PY2025-sourced conditions and definitive timeframes.
  > 💡 Populate the workbook with verified facility data and CMS-cited PY2025 TFU specifications.

### ✅ `7151c60a…` — score 6/10
- Pre-screening checklist does not display required patient information elements in a table format.
- Checklist content preview suggests missing detailed items from the Patient Information Document.
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing completed document content.
  > 💡 Revise the checklist to include a complete table listing all required patient information elements.

### ❌ `90edba97…` — score 3/10
- Did not enter actual patient lab results into the tracker.
- Used placeholder text despite provided Patient Lab Reports file.
- Monthly treatment and medication changes were not documented as required.
  > 💡 Populate the Excel tracker with actual labs and protocol-driven monthly treatment decisions from the provided reports.

### ✅ `91060ff0…` — score 8/10
- References are general and lack specific citations or URLs.
- Visual elements like icons or graphics are minimal.
- OTC product comparisons could include brand examples.
  > 💡 Add specific cited references and simple visuals to strengthen credibility and engagement.

### ❌ `8384083a…` — score 4/10
- DOCX file lacks the required table and medication details.
- Ozempic days’ supply calculation is incorrect for the listed pen.
- Table formatting contains truncated names and unclear formulas.
  > 💡 Correct calculations, fix formatting, and ensure the DOCX includes the complete reference table.

### ✅ `045aba2e…` — score 7/10
- Annual controlled substance inventory frequency may be incorrect under DEA requirements.
- Checklists lack citations to specific California law sections.
- Staff roles and responsibilities are not defined despite original scope.
  > 💡 Add legal citations, verify regulatory frequencies, and include role-based accountability sections.

### ❌ `f2986c1f…` — score 3/10
- Medications were not identified using Drugs.com as explicitly required.
- Spreadsheet contains only NA values despite available image.
- Likely multiple medications shown but only one row provided.
  > 💡 Identify each pill from the image using Drugs.com and populate complete, specific spreadsheet entries.

### ✅ `ffed32d8…` — score 6/10
- Comparative table omits drug costs, vial costs, and reimbursement details required by task.
- DOCX report lacks the detailed comparative table described in the requirements.
- Assumptions and calculation methodology are not transparently shown or validated.
  > 💡 Add a full cost-effectiveness table with explicit calculations and align both PDF and DOCX content.

### ✅ `a69be28f…` — score 8/10
- Text response describes deliverable but does not summarize key regional performance findings.
  > 💡 Add a brief written summary highlighting top fits by region for quick stakeholder review.

### ✅ `788d2bc6…` — score 6/10
- TikTok Shop and influencer services are missing or not clearly presented.
- Creative optimization services like A+ Content and Brand Story are not evident.
- Slides appear text-heavy with limited visible visual elements.
  > 💡 Add dedicated TikTok, influencer, and creative optimization slides with clear visuals to meet full requirements.

### ✅ `69a8ef86…` — score 5/10
- Internal process lacks detailed step-by-step actions, owners, and timelines.
- Required deadlines for all specified RA steps are not explicitly documented.
- Internal acronyms list omits KAR and SPS.
  > 💡 Revise the internal document to add explicit steps with actions, owners, and required timelines.

### ✅ `ab81b076…` — score 8/10
- Visual examples are referenced but not embedded directly in the PDF.
- Stock and critical order workflows could be more distinctly separated step-by-step.
  > 💡 Embed the example images in the PDF and add clearer parallel check-in steps for each order type.

### ✅ `d7cfae6f…` — score 5/10
- Recap file content is not shown to verify required calculations and structure.
- Axis labeling appears inconsistent with source data using 'Axe' instead of 'Axis'.
- Inventory comparison inclusion of October 2023 and Q1 2024 shipments is unverified.
  > 💡 Provide a visible preview of the recap sheet confirming all required metrics, labels, and totals.

### ❌ `19403010…` — score 4/10
- Sections 3–5 function tables are missing and not shown in the recap.
- Recap layout lacks required nine columns for function-level analysis.
- Total sales figures do not clearly reconcile to source data totals.
  > 💡 Add complete Sections 3–5 with required columns and reconcile totals to the source data.

### ✅ `105f8ad0…` — score 5/10
- No online competitor research or September 2025 source citations provided.
- Competitive set brands and products are not defined or documented.
- Rationales are generic and truncated, lacking SKU-specific COGS logic.
  > 💡 Add documented competitor research with sources, define the competitive set, and expand SKU-specific rationales.

### ✅ `b57efde3…` — score 6/10
- Did not verify companies against the official Aqua Nor 2025 exhibitor list.
- Prospecting list is very small relative to the hundreds of exhibitors.
- Spreadsheet lacks contact details or booth identifiers for on-site connection.
  > 💡 Cross-check exhibitors directly from the Aqua Nor list and expand entries with booth and contact information.

### ❌ `15d37511…` — score 4/10
- Used placeholder pricing despite actual numeric pricing provided in reference email.
- Margin per unit, margin percentage, and total gross margin are not calculated.
- Tiered pricing discount above 1,000 units is not applied or shown.
  > 💡 Rebuild the spreadsheet using actual pricing, apply tiered discounts, and complete all margin calculations and totals.

### ✅ `bb863dd9…` — score 7/10
- Delivery terms line appears incomplete and unclear about transport exclusion.
- WHO documentation link is not clearly visible in the quotation.
- Quotation table structure may not explicitly show shelf life and lead time columns.
  > 💡 Clarify delivery terms, add the WHO reference link, and explicitly label shelf life and lead time columns.

### ✅ `fe0d3941…` — score 8/10
- Survey does not specify targeting or sampling over a hundred respondents.
- An extra DOCX survey file was produced though only a PDF was requested.
  > 💡 Clarify intended sample size and remove or justify additional non-required files.

### ✅ `6a900a40…` — score 6/10
- General freight validity note conflicts with road quote validity of 10 days.
- Evidence of updated unit price and lead time per internal table is unclear.
- Placement and calculation of transport options below Total EXW not clearly verified.
  > 💡 Recheck revised quotation for pricing, lead time accuracy, transport totals, and consistent freight validity notes.

### ✅ `9efbcd35…` — score 6/10
- Relies on representative data instead of specific MSCI Q1 2025 performance figures.
- Does not cite or reference MSCI index returns or external news sources explicitly.
- Performance discussion lacks concrete numbers and comparative statistics.
  > 💡 Incorporate precise MSCI index returns and clearly cited sources to strengthen credibility.

### ✅ `1d4672c8…` — score 6/10
- Used synthetic data instead of required MSCI-sourced historical returns.
- Did not demonstrate extraction of data from MSCI website as specified.
- Excel data validity cannot support real correlation conclusions.
  > 💡 Rebuild analysis using actual MSCI monthly return data sourced from the specified website.

### ✅ `4de6a529…` — score 5/10
- Currency sub-asset class table is missing detailed rows and rationales.
- Several tables have truncated headers and awkward line breaks affecting professionalism.
- Conviction definitions and consistency are incomplete across asset classes.
  > 💡 Complete currency details, fix formatting, and standardize conviction usage across all line items.

### ✅ `4c4dc603…` — score 5/10
- Several required metrics are vague or missing, including target raise, IRR, token price, and supply.
- Key team section lacks named individuals and concrete profiles.
- Contact details and disclosures appear truncated or incomplete in the PDF.
  > 💡 Add concrete numerical economics, named team bios, and complete contact and disclosure details.

### ✅ `bb499d9c…` — score 8/10
- Text response summarizes intent rather than key document contents.
- Compliance coverage and regulations are not explicitly confirmed in the response.
- Page length and research sources are not explicitly validated.
  > 💡 Add a brief section-by-section summary and explicit compliance confirmation in the response.

### ✅ `5349dd7b…` — score 6/10
- No sources cited for historical rate increases or flat rate prices.
- UPS and FedEx flat rate offerings may not match actual published programs.
- Business rate eligibility and standard delivery definitions are not validated.
  > 💡 Add cited sources and verify carrier flat rate programs and business pricing eligibility.

### ✅ `a4a9195c…` — score 9/10
- Document lacks revision history and approval signatures section.
  > 💡 Add document control details such as revision, approval, and effective date.

### ✅ `552b7dd0…` — score 6/10
- Text response summarizes intent, not actual analytical findings.
- Management recommendations and key takeaways are not explicitly presented.
- Confidence tag is unprofessional and unnecessary.
  > 💡 Include concrete findings and recommendations directly summarized from the analyzed data.

### ✅ `76418a2c…` — score 6/10
- Completed manifest content is not shown, preventing verification of calculations and shipping methods.
- No evidence provided that savings were calculated using industry average versus actual costs.
- Text response lacks a summary of results or key shipment decisions.
  > 💡 Include a brief results summary and show key rows from the completed manifest to verify calculations.

### ❌ `0e386e32…` — score 4/10
- Output promises full codebase but provided ZIP is implausibly small.
- No evidence files contain required frontend, contracts, or scripts.
- Deliverable relies on mocked components without clarifying scope limits.
  > 💡 Provide a complete, non-mocked scaffold with verifiable file contents matching the described architecture.

### ❌ `7de33b48…` — score 3/10
- Zip contents not demonstrated to include the utility implementation or tests.
- WCAG ARIA22 tests and visible wrapping behavior are not evidenced.
- README and package.json lack required configuration and testing details.
  > 💡 Include full TypeScript utility code, RTL+Sinon tests, and verify zip contents explicitly.

### ❌ `4122f866…` — score 4/10
- Actual Terraform and Lambda source code contents are not provided for verification.
- SES domain identity, DKIM, MAIL FROM, and email template configuration are unverified.
- API Gateway route, stage, and outputs are not demonstrably implemented.
  > 💡 Include full readable Terraform files and Lambda source code to allow proper technical validation.

### ❌ `2c249e0f…` — score 3/10
- OpenAPI 3.0 YAML specification file is completely missing.
- Only data_flow.txt was produced; required API deliverable absent.
- Text response claims deliverables that were not actually generated.
  > 💡 Provide a complete OpenAPI 3.0 YAML file alongside the existing data_flow.txt.

## Failure Analysis

The 5 terminal errors were not random; they were concentrated in spreadsheet/code-heavy workflows and were mostly caused by brittle assumptions about input structure. Four of the five hard failures were pandas KeyErrors on exact column names in Manufacturing and Wholesale Trade: task 327fbc21-7d26-4964-bf7c-f4f41e55c54d expected ACTIVE STATUS, 9e39df84-ac57-4c9b-a2e3-12b8abf2c797 expected Week #, 7ed932dd-244f-4d61-bf02-1bc3bab1af14 expected In Stock (cases), and 11dcc268-cb07-4d3a-a184-c6d7a19349bc expected Item #. The fifth, 854f3814-681c-4950-91ac-55b0db0e3781, was a pure code-hygiene failure from an unterminated triple-quoted string. This points to weak schema discovery and weak pre-execution validation rather than broad reasoning failure. It also explains why the residual reliability issues were localized in Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, and Professional/Scientific/Technical Services.

A larger hidden failure mode is successful execution paired with substitute deliverables rather than the requested artifact. Information-sector media tasks are the clearest example: audio/video assignments often returned plans, logs, or placeholder assets instead of final WAV/MP4 outputs, including 38889c3b-e3d4-49c8-816a-3cc8e5313aba, 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. Professional/Scientific/Technical Services shows the same pattern in software tasks: 0e386e32-df20-4d1f-b536-7159bc409ad5, 7de33b48-5163-4f50-b5f3-8deea8185e57, 4122f866-01fa-400b-904d-fa171cdab7c7, and 2c249e0f-4a8c-4f8e-b4f4-6508ba29b34f all completed but lacked verifiable core files or package contents. These tasks count as successes operationally, but the QA signals show they often missed the actual artifact requirement.

Another recurring pattern is evidentiary substitution: the model produced polished documents but skipped the required real-data extraction, citations, or source-constrained analysis. Finance and Real Estate are prominent here: 8079e27d-b6f3-4f75-a9b5-db27903c798d used illustrative S&P 500 data, 1d4672c8-b0a7-488f-905f-9ab4e25a19f7 used synthetic MSCI returns, 0818571f-5ff7-4d39-9d2c-ced5ae44299e and 6074bba3-7e3a-4b1c-b8c6-a15bb6695c3b relied on illustrative listings/comps, and 11593a50-734d-4449-b5b4-f8986a133fd8 and 94925f49-36bc-42da-b45b-61078d329300 used unverified property or school data. Similar source-substitution appeared in Health Care and project/research tasks such as 0353ee0c-18b5-4ad3-88e8-e001d223e1d7, dd724c67-8118-4b99-ab50-4761af705c3b, 90edba97-74f0-425a-8ff6-8b93182eb7cb, and 02aa1805-c658-4069-8a6a-02dec146063a. These tasks usually produced files and avoided terminal error, but their QA scores fell because the core evidentiary step was not completed.

Across the full run, retries improved availability more than quality. All 5 terminal errors were retried and still failed, so the retry loop did not repair root-cause schema/code issues. Among successful retried tasks, many still landed at low or middling QA: ff85ee58-bc9f-4aa2-806d-87edeabb1b81, 4b894ae3-1f23-4560-b13d-07ed1132074e, 5f6c57dd-feb6-4e70-b152-4969d92d1608, 3c19c6d1-672c-467a-8437-6fe21afb8eae, and 2fa8e956-7b35-4c13-95dc-027f02be318b all recovered to success but still scored only 3-4. Latency also showed weak or inverse value: the slowest task, 38889c3b-e3d4-49c8-816a-3cc8e5313aba at roughly 348 seconds, still scored 3, while many faster document-centric Retail and Government tasks such as 211d0093-2c64-4bd0-828c-0201f18924e7, 8f9e8bcd-6102-40da-ab76-23f51d8b21fa, a328feea-47db-4856-b4be-2bdc63dd88fb, and 575f8679-b4c1-47c2-8e96-d570d4ed9269 scored 8-9. The stable tasks were generally bounded text/document deliverables with low external-data and low binary-artifact dependence.

## Recommendations

Add a mandatory preflight inspection layer before any spreadsheet transformation or code execution. For workbook tasks, the system should enumerate sheets, detect header rows, normalize column names, and build an alias map before the first pandas access; that would directly reduce failures like 327fbc21-7d26-4964-bf7c-f4f41e55c54d, 9e39df84-ac57-4c9b-a2e3-12b8abf2c797, 7ed932dd-244f-4d61-bf02-1bc3bab1af14, and 11dcc268-cb07-4d3a-a184-c6d7a19349bc. For code-generation tasks, run a syntax parse and lightweight lint pass before execution and packaging; task 854f3814-681c-4950-91ac-55b0db0e3781 should have been caught before runtime. This is the highest-leverage config change because the hard failures were mostly deterministic and preventable.

Introduce deliverable-type routing with artifact validation rather than relying on narrative claims. Media tasks should only pass if the expected binary exists and matches spec-level checks such as file type, codec, duration, sample rate, and bit depth; this would have blocked surrogate outputs 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. Code/package tasks should be unzipped and checked for required filenames, minimum byte sizes, and parseability of the claimed source files, which would surface issues in 0e386e32-df20-4d1f-b536-7159bc409ad5, 7de33b48-5163-4f50-b5f3-8deea8185e57, 4122f866-01fa-400b-904d-fa171cdab7c7, and 2c249e0f-4a8c-4f8e-b4f4-6508ba29b34f. Where possible, route audio/video and software build tasks to specialized toolchains instead of treating planning documents as acceptable substitutes.

Tighten prompt engineering and QA around evidence-bearing tasks. When a task requires live or public-source data, attached-document extraction, or specific external citations, require a source ledger in the deliverable or response: URLs or document names, retrieval dates, and a concise note showing how each source informed the output. That would specifically target the substitution pattern seen in 8079e27d-b6f3-4f75-a9b5-db27903c798d, 1d4672c8-b0a7-488f-905f-9ab4e25a19f7, 0818571f-5ff7-4d39-9d2c-ced5ae44299e, 6074bba3-7e3a-4b1c-b8c6-a15bb6695c3b, 94925f49-36bc-42da-b45b-61078d329300, 0353ee0c-18b5-4ad3-88e8-e001d223e1d7, and 02aa1805-c658-4069-8a6a-02dec146063a. In parallel, add lexical QA triggers for telltale weak-output phrases such as placeholder, illustrative, sample, template, or inability to access; these phrases were strongly associated with low-QA outputs even when the task status was success.

Retune the retry policy and acceptance threshold so that retries repair the observed defect class instead of merely reattempting execution. Right now, retries helped completion but not fidelity: ff85ee58-bc9f-4aa2-806d-87edeabb1b81, 4b894ae3-1f23-4560-b13d-07ed1132074e, 5f6c57dd-feb6-4e70-b152-4969d92d1608, 3c19c6d1-672c-467a-8437-6fe21afb8eae, and 2fa8e956-7b35-4c13-95dc-027f02be318b all retried to success but still delivered weak outputs. A better approach is failure-class-specific repair: on schema errors, first print discovered columns and adjust mappings; on formatting-heavy document tasks, run a post-generation checklist for page count, required tables, and requested file count; on low-QA but successful tasks, trigger a targeted revision pass when QA is 4 or below or when structural validators fail. That threshold change would prevent the system from counting polished-but-incomplete deliverables as fully successful and would better align the 97.7% completion rate with actual usable quality.

## Deliverable Files

- `83d10b06…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `7b08cd4d…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `7d7fc9a7…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 7 file(s)
- `43dc9778…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 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): 3 file(s)
- `c44e9b62…` (Government): 7 file(s)
- `99ac6944…` (Information): 6 file(s)
- `f9a1c16c…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `38889c3b…` (Information): 2 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): 5 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): 6 file(s)
- `a10ec48c…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `fccaa4a1…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 8 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)
- `b7a5912e…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `aa071045…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `476db143…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 6 file(s)
- `61f546a8…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 5 file(s)
- `f3351922…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `61717508…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 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): 4 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): 3 file(s)
- `46b34f78…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `a1963a68…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `5f6c57dd…` (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)
- `3f821c2d…` (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): 3 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)
- `68d8d901…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `1752cb53…` (Manufacturing): 6 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): 6 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): 3 file(s)
- `c6269101…` (Manufacturing): 5 file(s)
- `be830ca0…` (Manufacturing): 8 file(s)
- `cd9efc18…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `a97369c7…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `3f625cb2…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `aad21e4c…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `8314d1b1…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `5e2b6aab…` (Manufacturing): 5 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): 4 file(s)
- `f1be6436…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 5 file(s)
- `41f6ef59…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `a0552909…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 8 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)
- `f841ddcf…` (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): 3 file(s)
- `57b2cdf2…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `84322284…` (Retail Trade): 5 file(s)
- `a46d5cd2…` (Retail Trade): 6 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): 9 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): 6 file(s)
- `94925f49…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 6 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): 7 file(s)
- `91060ff0…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `8384083a…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `045aba2e…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `f2986c1f…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `ffed32d8…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `b3573f20…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `a69be28f…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `788d2bc6…` (Wholesale Trade): 8 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): 3 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): 3 file(s)
- `4122f866…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 3 file(s)
- `2c249e0f…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
