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

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| **Experiment ID** | `exp003_GPT52Chat_baseline_runner_exec` |
| **Condition** | Baseline |
| **Model** | gpt-5.2-chat |
| **Execution Mode** | subprocess |
| **Date** | 2026-02-26 |
| **Duration** | 149m 10s |
| **Generated At** | 2026-02-26T19:03:29.382558+00:00 |
| 🤗 HF Dataset | [exp003_GPT52Chat_baseline_runner_exec](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp003_GPT52Chat_baseline_runner_exec) |
| 📊 Self-Report | [self_report.json](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp003_GPT52Chat_baseline_runner_exec/blob/main/self_report.json) |
| 📊 Grading | ⏳ Awaiting (`scores.json`) |

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

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

This experiment evaluated GPT-5.2 Chat Baseline in subprocess mode across 220 tasks. Overall task completion was high: 211 of 220 tasks succeeded, for a 95.9% task completion rate. The run also recorded 9 errors and 37 retried tasks, indicating generally stable execution with some recoverable failures during processing.

From an output-quality perspective, the main signal available is the model's self-assessed confidence via Self-QA. Average LLM-evaluated quality was 6.18/10, with observed scores ranging from 3 to 9. That pattern suggests deliverables were usually produced and were often judged by the model itself as usable, but consistency was moderate rather than uniformly strong.

Deliverable file generation quality appears broadly acceptable at the run level because the high success count implies most tasks completed with expected artifacts produced. However, the presence of 9 hard errors and 37 retries indicates that file generation or finalization was not fully smooth in all cases, and some outputs likely required recovery paths before completion.

Latency averaged 28,381 ms across the full run. Sector outcomes were mostly strong, with four sectors achieving full success in their allocation: Government, Information, Real Estate and Rental and Leasing, and Retail Trade. The most notable operational outlier was Information, which maintained full completion but at much higher average latency than other sectors.

## Key Metrics

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Tasks | 220 |
| Success | 211 (95.9%) |
| Errors | 9 |
| Retried Tasks | 37 |
| Avg QA Score | 6.18/10 |
| Min QA Score | 3/10 |
| Max QA Score | 9/10 |
| Avg Latency | 28,381ms |
| Max Latency | 356,886ms |
| Total LLM Time | 6243s |

## File Generation

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

### Resume Rounds

| Round | Attempted | Recovered | Still Failed |
|-------|-----------|-----------|--------------|
| 1 | 23 | 23 | 0 |
| 2 | 14 | 5 | 9 |

## Quality Analysis

The Self-QA distribution indicates mid-range self-assessed confidence overall. An average of 6.18/10, with a minimum of 3 and maximum of 9, points to outputs that were generally acceptable but uneven in strength. This is consistent with a baseline run that completes most tasks successfully while still showing meaningful variation in how confident the model was about the resulting deliverables.

At the sector level, Government showed the strongest LLM-evaluated quality at 6.8/10 while also maintaining 25/25 task success, making it the most balanced combination of completion and self-assessed quality in the summary. Retail Trade was close behind at 6.7/10 with 20/20 success, and Real Estate and Rental and Leasing also performed well at 6.4/10 with 25/25 success. The weakest quality signals came from Information at 5.6/10 and Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services at 5.7/10, despite Information still achieving full task completion.

Latency does not show a simple positive relationship with quality. Information had by far the highest average latency at 45,845 ms but one of the lowest Self-QA averages, suggesting that longer runtime did not translate into stronger self-assessed output quality there. By contrast, Government combined relatively low latency at 24,315 ms with the highest average Self-QA, and Retail Trade showed a similarly efficient profile. Across the remaining sectors, latency mostly clustered in the mid-20 to low-30 second range while quality stayed near 6/10, indicating limited overall correlation.

Occupation-specific performance cannot be isolated from the provided summary because the available breakdown is sector-level rather than role-level. Within that constraint, the main practical takeaway is that successful sectors generally appear to have produced deliverable files of usable quality, but repeated retries and sector-to-sector QA spread suggest uneven robustness in final output generation. In particular, sectors with lower self-assessed confidence should be treated as more variable even when nominal task completion remained high.

## Sector Breakdown

| Sector | Tasks | Success | Success% | Avg QA | Avg Latency |
|--------|-------|---------|----------|--------|-------------|
| Finance and Insurance | 25 | 23 | 92.0% | 5.96/10 | 27,267ms |
| Government | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 6.8/10 | 24,315ms |
| Health Care and Social Assistance | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 6.08/10 | 25,856ms |
| Information | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 5.6/10 | 45,845ms |
| Manufacturing | 25 | 23 | 92.0% | 6.09/10 | 26,409ms |
| Professional, Scientific, and Technical  | 25 | 23 | 92.0% | 5.74/10 | 30,083ms |
| Real Estate and Rental and Leasing | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 6.4/10 | 25,343ms |
| Retail Trade | 20 | 20 | 100.0% | 6.7/10 | 24,432ms |
| Wholesale Trade | 25 | 23 | 92.0% | 6.35/10 | 25,092ms |

## Task Results

| # | Task ID | Sector | Occupation | Status | Retry | Files | QA Score | Latency |
|---|---------|--------|------------|--------|-------|-------|----------|---------|
| 1 | `83d10b06…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 22134ms |
| 2 | `7b08cd4d…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 22850ms |
| 3 | `7d7fc9a7…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 7 | 6/10 | 23949ms |
| 4 | `43dc9778…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 16 | 4/10 | 26405ms |
| 5 | `ee09d943…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 18 | 4/10 | 26909ms |
| 6 | `f84ea6ac…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 26035ms |
| 7 | `a328feea…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 16717ms |
| 8 | `27e8912c…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 26478ms |
| 9 | `17111c03…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 27094ms |
| 10 | `c44e9b62…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | Yes | 6 | 5/10 | 26906ms |
| 11 | `99ac6944…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 29957ms |
| 12 | `f9a1c16c…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 24028ms |
| 13 | `38889c3b…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 356886ms |
| 14 | `ff85ee58…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 28528ms |
| 15 | `4b894ae3…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 3/10 | 26856ms |
| 16 | `1b1ade2d…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 28592ms |
| 17 | `93b336f3…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 23911ms |
| 18 | `15ddd28d…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 29598ms |
| 19 | `24d1e93f…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 24175ms |
| 20 | `05389f78…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 36275ms |
| 21 | `575f8679…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 26610ms |
| 22 | `a74ead3b…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 25965ms |
| 23 | `bbe0a93b…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 26979ms |
| 24 | `85d95ce5…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 4 | 3/10 | 37555ms |
| 25 | `76d10872…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 5 | 4/10 | 23473ms |
| 26 | `36d567ba…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 25690ms |
| 27 | `7bbfcfe9…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 19036ms |
| 28 | `2696757c…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 18885ms |
| 29 | `dfb4e0cd…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 14168ms |
| 30 | `4c18ebae…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 23333ms |
| 31 | `cebf301e…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 29605ms |
| 32 | `c2e8f271…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 35278ms |
| 33 | `2ea2e5b5…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 28336ms |
| 34 | `c357f0e2…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 35104ms |
| 35 | `a45bc83b…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 5 | 7/10 | 35711ms |
| 36 | `a10ec48c…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 27114ms |
| 37 | `fccaa4a1…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 31047ms |
| 38 | `f5d428fd…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 8 | 7/10 | 31867ms |
| 39 | `2fa8e956…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 21577ms |
| 40 | `0e4fe8cd…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 23339ms |
| 41 | `a0ef404e…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 31493ms |
| 42 | `b7a5912e…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 18420ms |
| 43 | `aa071045…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 8/10 | 18000ms |
| 44 | `476db143…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 4 | 9/10 | 16140ms |
| 45 | `61f546a8…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 29499ms |
| 46 | `f3351922…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 25732ms |
| 47 | `61717508…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 39679ms |
| 48 | `0ed38524…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 21723ms |
| 49 | `87da214f…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 32016ms |
| 50 | `d025a41c…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 25676ms |
| 51 | `401a07f1…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 28569ms |
| 52 | `afe56d05…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 45378ms |
| 53 | `9a8c8e28…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 28832ms |
| 54 | `3a4c347c…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 23530ms |
| 55 | `ec2fccc9…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 33015ms |
| 56 | `8c8fc328…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 20033ms |
| 57 | `e222075d…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 6 | 4/10 | 34623ms |
| 58 | `c94452e4…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 11 | 4/10 | 33208ms |
| 59 | `75401f7c…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 3/10 | 29139ms |
| 60 | `a941b6d8…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 3/10 | 27980ms |
| 61 | `8079e27d…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 21162ms |
| 62 | `e21cd746…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 5/10 | 21004ms |
| 63 | `9e8607e7…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 37650ms |
| 64 | `c7d83f01…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 37506ms |
| 65 | `46b34f78…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 27189ms |
| 66 | `a1963a68…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 24702ms |
| 67 | `5f6c57dd…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 20848ms |
| 68 | `b39a5aa7…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 21356ms |
| 69 | `b78fd844…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 29583ms |
| 70 | `4520f882…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 28981ms |
| 71 | `ec591973…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 18078ms |
| 72 | `62f04c2f…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 23844ms |
| 73 | `3f821c2d…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 26455ms |
| 74 | `e996036e…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 18677ms |
| 75 | `327fbc21…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 25678ms |
| 76 | `6dcae3f5…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 33324ms |
| 77 | `1aecc095…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 28461ms |
| 78 | `0353ee0c…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 3/10 | 29044ms |
| 79 | `40a8c4b1…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 5/10 | 24000ms |
| 80 | `4d1a8410…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 11 | 3/10 | 21321ms |
| 81 | `8c823e32…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 29407ms |
| 82 | `eb54f575…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 24856ms |
| 83 | `11e1b169…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 23119ms |
| 84 | `a95a5829…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 28102ms |
| 85 | `22c0809b…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 26623ms |
| 86 | `bf68f2ad…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 5/10 | 23414ms |
| 87 | `efca245f…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 21799ms |
| 88 | `9e39df84…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 29466ms |
| 89 | `68d8d901…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 27128ms |
| 90 | `1752cb53…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 15324ms |
| 91 | `bd72994f…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 22746ms |
| 92 | `211d0093…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 12993ms |
| 93 | `d4525420…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 10102ms |
| 94 | `45c6237b…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 27054ms |
| 95 | `cecac8f9…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 23420ms |
| 96 | `8f9e8bcd…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 25502ms |
| 97 | `0fad6023…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 7/10 | 20316ms |
| 98 | `02314fc6…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 25551ms |
| 99 | `4d61a19a…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 35653ms |
| 100 | `6436ff9e…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 28167ms |
| 101 | `8a7b6fca…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 23338ms |
| 102 | `40a99a31…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 25967ms |
| 103 | `b9665ca1…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 42773ms |
| 104 | `c6269101…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 28766ms |
| 105 | `be830ca0…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 8 | 6/10 | 33823ms |
| 106 | `cd9efc18…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 33789ms |
| 107 | `a97369c7…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 34652ms |
| 108 | `3f625cb2…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 24543ms |
| 109 | `aad21e4c…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 31102ms |
| 110 | `8314d1b1…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 47770ms |
| 111 | `5e2b6aab…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 26307ms |
| 112 | `46fc494e…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 6 | 3/10 | 35854ms |
| 113 | `3940b7e7…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 25945ms |
| 114 | `8077e700…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 26064ms |
| 115 | `5a2d70da…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 24596ms |
| 116 | `74d6e8b0…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 25582ms |
| 117 | `81db15ff…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 26408ms |
| 118 | `61b0946a…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 28491ms |
| 119 | `61e7b9c6…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 3/10 | 18231ms |
| 120 | `c9bf9801…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 34783ms |
| 121 | `f1be6436…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 5 | 5/10 | 28068ms |
| 122 | `41f6ef59…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 23888ms |
| 123 | `a0552909…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 21238ms |
| 124 | `6d2c8e55…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 13 | 8/10 | 28300ms |
| 125 | `4b98ccce…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 7 | 6/10 | 30946ms |
| 126 | `60221cd0…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 29184ms |
| 127 | `ef8719da…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 34538ms |
| 128 | `3baa0009…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 32525ms |
| 129 | `5d0feb24…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 47726ms |
| 130 | `6974adea…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 8 | 4/10 | 48375ms |
| 131 | `1a78e076…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 29935ms |
| 132 | `1b9ec237…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 28058ms |
| 133 | `0112fc9b…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 25515ms |
| 134 | `772e7524…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 18880ms |
| 135 | `e6429658…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 31032ms |
| 136 | `b5d2e6f1…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 27396ms |
| 137 | `f841ddcf…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 21198ms |
| 138 | `47ef842d…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 28389ms |
| 139 | `1137e2bb…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 29913ms |
| 140 | `c3525d4d…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 5 | 7/10 | 39813ms |
| 141 | `9a0d8d36…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 23094ms |
| 142 | `664a42e5…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 19732ms |
| 143 | `feb5eefc…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 41251ms |
| 144 | `3600de06…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 21967ms |
| 145 | `c657103b…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 29630ms |
| 146 | `ae0c1093…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 26714ms |
| 147 | `f9f82549…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 24447ms |
| 148 | `57b2cdf2…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 36043ms |
| 149 | `84322284…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 4 | 4/10 | 33626ms |
| 150 | `a46d5cd2…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 5 | 8/10 | 30028ms |
| 151 | `6241e678…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 46939ms |
| 152 | `e14e32ba…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 43119ms |
| 153 | `b1a79ce1…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 8/10 | 27967ms |
| 154 | `e4f664ea…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 36250ms |
| 155 | `a079d38f…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 28931ms |
| 156 | `02aa1805…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 32976ms |
| 157 | `fd6129bd…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 30876ms |
| 158 | `ce864f41…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 5 | 5/10 | 29139ms |
| 159 | `58ac1cc5…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 7 | 8/10 | 38890ms |
| 160 | `3c19c6d1…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | Yes | 5 | 6/10 | 29085ms |
| 161 | `a99d85fc…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 22586ms |
| 162 | `55ddb773…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 28433ms |
| 163 | `1e5a1d7f…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 18724ms |
| 164 | `0419f1c3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 31441ms |
| 165 | `ed2bc14c…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 23265ms |
| 166 | `46bc7238…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 8 | 7/10 | 23226ms |
| 167 | `2d06bc0a…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 19624ms |
| 168 | `fd3ad420…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 18543ms |
| 169 | `0818571f…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 17 | 5/10 | 29316ms |
| 170 | `6074bba3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 4 | 8/10 | 28078ms |
| 171 | `5ad0c554…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 28868ms |
| 172 | `11593a50…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 29870ms |
| 173 | `94925f49…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 29511ms |
| 174 | `90f37ff3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 24127ms |
| 175 | `d3d255b2…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 29457ms |
| 176 | `403b9234…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 18414ms |
| 177 | `1bff4551…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 25513ms |
| 178 | `650adcb1…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 24222ms |
| 179 | `01d7e53e…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 6/10 | 22124ms |
| 180 | `a73fbc98…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | Yes | 5 | 6/10 | 20563ms |
| 181 | `0ec25916…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 20582ms |
| 182 | `116e791e…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 19379ms |
| 183 | `dd724c67…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 26798ms |
| 184 | `7151c60a…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 19313ms |
| 185 | `90edba97…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 7 | 3/10 | 24812ms |
| 186 | `91060ff0…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 25640ms |
| 187 | `8384083a…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 22931ms |
| 188 | `045aba2e…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 18717ms |
| 189 | `f2986c1f…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 15893ms |
| 190 | `ffed32d8…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 23086ms |
| 191 | `b3573f20…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 20640ms |
| 192 | `a69be28f…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 20 | 8/10 | 26677ms |
| 193 | `788d2bc6…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 29191ms |
| 194 | `74ed1dc7…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 28354ms |
| 195 | `69a8ef86…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 26801ms |
| 196 | `ab81b076…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 30661ms |
| 197 | `d7cfae6f…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 21427ms |
| 198 | `19403010…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 3/10 | 22869ms |
| 199 | `7ed932dd…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 19176ms |
| 200 | `105f8ad0…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 22264ms |
| 201 | `b57efde3…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 25534ms |
| 202 | `15d37511…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 18946ms |
| 203 | `bb863dd9…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 23786ms |
| 204 | `fe0d3941…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 4 | 8/10 | 25333ms |
| 205 | `6a900a40…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 26212ms |
| 206 | `9efbcd35…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 25994ms |
| 207 | `1d4672c8…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 20241ms |
| 208 | `4de6a529…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 24757ms |
| 209 | `4c4dc603…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 24689ms |
| 210 | `bb499d9c…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 35508ms |
| 211 | `5349dd7b…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 26581ms |
| 212 | `a4a9195c…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 24840ms |
| 213 | `552b7dd0…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 5 | 7/10 | 22929ms |
| 214 | `11dcc268…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 4/10 | 16476ms |
| 215 | `76418a2c…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 5/10 | 16276ms |
| 216 | `0e386e32…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 27148ms |
| 217 | `7de33b48…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 19067ms |
| 218 | `854f3814…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 17757ms |
| 219 | `4122f866…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 31248ms |
| 220 | `2c249e0f…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 37758ms |

## QA Issues

### ✅ `83d10b06…` — score 6/10
- Sample selection exceeds calculated sample size and is not constrained to 68 items.
- Required column placement not followed; variance and sample indicator not in columns J and K.
- Sample size calculation lacks explicit formula and step-by-step workings.
  > 💡 Align columns to specifications, limit samples to calculated size, and document full sample size formula and steps.

### ❌ `7b08cd4d…` — score 3/10
- Revenue line items are missing; totals show zero values.
- Expenses lack Tour Manager costs and combined source breakdown.
- Net income is not calculated or displayed.
  > 💡 Populate all revenue and expense data from reference files and compute totals and net income.

### ✅ `7d7fc9a7…` — score 6/10
- No evidence shown that schedules reconcile to provided GL balances.
- BCBS January prepayment treatment and amortization start are not explicitly demonstrated.
- Prepaid Summary totals and ending balances are described but not shown or verified.
  > 💡 Include explicit reconciliation tables and key totals in the summary to visibly tie schedules to GL balances.

### ❌ `43dc9778…` — score 4/10
- Claims three qualifying children without support from provided intake information.
- No evidence the 1040 PDF contains completed calculations or line-by-line entries.
- Required schedules are listed but not shown as completed forms.
  > 💡 Verify dependent count and include fully completed 1040 and all required schedules with calculations.

### ❌ `ee09d943…` — score 4/10
- Did not demonstrate that April data was actually updated within the consolidated workbook.
- Delivered multiple source files instead of only the required consolidated workbook.
- Response describes intent rather than verifying accuracy, reconciliation, or flagged issues.
  > 💡 Provide only the completed April workbook with verified updates, reconciliations, and documented exceptions.

### ❌ `f84ea6ac…` — score 3/10
- Document lacks required summary table and point-form comparison.
- No five academic articles identified or summarized.
- Publication dates, sources, and public availability not evidenced.
  > 💡 Add a one-page table summarizing five post-2020 public academic studies with required columns.

### ✅ `a328feea…` — score 9/10
- No backup contact specified if supervisor or team lead is unreachable.
- Consequences for non-compliance are not addressed.
  > 💡 Add a backup contact process and briefly note consequences for failing to follow the procedure.

### ✅ `27e8912c…` — score 6/10
- Action Items Word document lacks the required tracking table with specified columns.
- Checklist contains typos and a broken NIH reference link.
- Word document is missing employee/workstation detail fields and resolution tracking.
  > 💡 Add the complete tracking table with required fields, fix checklist errors, and verify sources and links.

### ✅ `17111c03…` — score 8/10
- Cleanup schedule dates begin in 2025 while memo is dated 2026.
  > 💡 Align the memo date or clarify that the schedule is a continuing multi‑year rotation.

### ✅ `c44e9b62…` — score 5/10
- Revised org chart and FTE report content do not clearly demonstrate the 4% reduction calculation.
- Briefing note lacks specific narratives tying each reduction to Budget Principle #7.
- Response references runnable Python code, which was not requested as a deliverable.
  > 💡 Explicitly quantify reductions, align narratives to Principle #7, and remove references to unnecessary implementation details.

### ✅ `99ac6944…` — score 7/10
- PDF lacks visible web links to retailers for listed equipment.
- Dynamic microphones included despite task implying existing on-stage vocal mics.
- Professional-grade justification for Behringer mixer is minimal.
  > 💡 Add retailer links, remove or justify microphones, and briefly justify mixer choice.

### ✅ `f9a1c16c…` — score 6/10
- PDF lacks clear, distinct graphic icons for all required stage elements.
- Wedge numbering order counterclockwise from stage right is unclear or incorrect.
- Singer wedge vocal inclusion and drummer wedge mix details are not visually indicated.

### ❌ `38889c3b…` — score 4/10
- No evidence files meet 48kHz 24-bit float specification.
- No verification of tempo, keys, or exact bridge timing in audio.
- Use and synchronization of provided drum reference not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Include a contents manifest verifying specs, tempo, keys, and drum alignment for each file.

### ❌ `ff85ee58…` — score 3/10
- No final mixed WAV audio file was produced.
- Sax resyncing, editing, and effects were not actually performed.
- Loudness and format requirements were not verified or delivered.
  > 💡 Provide the actual 24-bit 48 kHz final mix WAV with resynced, processed sax meeting LUFS specs.

### ❌ `4b894ae3…` — score 3/10
- No edited bass audio or final stereo WAV file was actually produced.
- Response describes intended work but performs no audio editing or mixing.
- Includes extraneous Python claim and files not requested as deliverables.
  > 💡 Provide the actual edited bass stem and final mixed WAV meeting the specified format and name.

### ✅ `93b336f3…` — score 7/10
- Document invents equity split and location not specified in original task.
- Recommendations section appears truncated at the end.
- Limited discussion of future localisation cost sensitivities.
  > 💡 Remove invented assumptions, complete truncated text, and add a brief localisation sensitivity analysis.

### ✅ `15ddd28d…` — score 8/10
- Text response unnecessarily references Python code generation.
  > 💡 Remove implementation details and focus the response on delivered content and outcomes.

### ✅ `24d1e93f…` — score 6/10
- Cash outflows treated as positive, yielding incorrect positive NPVs and inverted interpretation.
- No variant-wise pricing, volumes, or tooling amortization math shown despite requirement.
- Sales volumes appear assumed; attached reference lacks numeric projections used.
  > 💡 Recalculate NPVs with negative cash flows, explicit variant-level costing, and documented volume assumptions.

### ✅ `05389f78…` — score 5/10
- Report lacks required INR cost calculations and comparative financial analysis.
- Quotation reference contains no numeric data, violating analysis requirements.
- CPO report likely shorter than the mandated 2–3 pages.
  > 💡 Obtain complete numeric quotations and redo the CPO report with full INR-based cost comparisons.

### ✅ `575f8679…` — score 8/10
- Appendix instruments are summarized but full sample questions are limited.
- Data analysis section could specify statistical tests or coding approaches.
- Timeline and responsibilities for evaluation activities are not clearly defined.
  > 💡 Add a brief evaluation timeline and clearer analytic procedures to strengthen rigor.

### ✅ `a74ead3b…` — score 7/10
- Manual-specific Session 13 and 14 content alignment is not demonstrated.
- Icebreaker and wrap-up slides cannot be verified from provided evidence.
- Accessibility features like plain-language checks or visual accommodations are unspecified.
  > 💡 Explicitly reference manual sections and detail slide content, including accessibility features, in the summary.

### ✅ `bbe0a93b…` — score 7/10
- Resource guide lacks websites and brief descriptions for listed organizations.
- Spanish needs assessment includes mixed English headers and inconsistent language.
- Needs assessment tables are not clearly formatted as three distinct columns.
  > 💡 Revise PDFs to correct language consistency, improve table formatting, and add full resource details.

### ❌ `85d95ce5…` — score 3/10
- Final report is only 3 pages, not the required 8–15 pages.
- Reference files and notes appear to be for a different student name.
- Deliverable description claims code generation instead of providing full written report.
  > 💡 Regenerate the full 8–15 page report using correct student files and include all required sections and recommendations.

### ❌ `76d10872…` — score 4/10
- Actual report content is missing; only a descriptive summary was provided.
- Compliance with Case Creation Guide formatting is not demonstrated.
- PDF file contents are not shown or verifiable.
  > 💡 Include the complete filled report content matching the guide and verify the attached PDF.

### ✅ `36d567ba…` — score 9/10
- Minor typographical error in the Conflicts of Interest section text.
  > 💡 Proofread the document to correct typos and ensure all sections display completely.

### ✅ `4c18ebae…` — score 6/10
- Promised complete Python code was not included in the text response.
- An extra file was produced that was not requested in the deliverables.
- Output shifted scope to file generation rather than solely reporting investigation findings.
  > 💡 Align deliverables strictly to the task and include all promised components explicitly.

### ✅ `cebf301e…` — score 8/10
- Authentication TOTP enrollment and recovery flows are not detailed.
- PDF generation approach and performance considerations are not specified.
  > 💡 Add brief flow diagrams for authentication and PDF export to reduce implementation ambiguity.

### ✅ `c2e8f271…` — score 8/10
- Document ends with a truncated sentence in the final section.
- Monorepo-specific standards are mentioned but not detailed.
- Some referenced style guides are listed without direct hyperlinks.
  > 💡 Complete the final section, add monorepo-specific guidance, and include clickable links to all referenced guides.

### ✅ `2ea2e5b5…` — score 6/10
- Output describes a plan but does not explicitly show required activity classifications.
- Strategic level definitions are incomplete and not fully applied.
- No evidence shown that specified mappings were used in analysis.
  > 💡 Include explicit tables showing each activity mapped to margin impact, time sensitivity, and strategic level.

### ✅ `c357f0e2…` — score 7/10
- Output claims Python code but no code is included in the response.
- Generated Excel column headers do not match the template names.
- Viewer role and browser compatibility coverage is unclear or limited.
  > 💡 Align Excel headers exactly to the template and ensure all roles and browser tests are explicitly covered.

### ✅ `a45bc83b…` — score 7/10
- Architecture summary is paragraph-based, not clearly bulleted as required.
- High availability and multi-region strategy are not explicitly detailed.
- Text response describes deliverables but omits architectural decision rationale.
  > 💡 Revise documents to use explicit bullets, add clear HA design details, and briefly justify key GCP service choices.

### ❌ `a10ec48c…` — score 3/10
- Document lacks required tables with columns and restaurant rows.
- No restaurant details, links, hours, directions, or categories provided.
- Sources from Downtown Sarasota and Google Maps not used or cited.
  > 💡 Populate each cuisine table with verified restaurant data and complete all required columns.

### ✅ `fccaa4a1…` — score 6/10
- Tour operator description lacks explicit reference or citation to www.TakeWalks.com.
- Icons appear improperly rendered as placeholder symbols instead of styled visual icons.
- Age requirement states 2–14 years, conflicting with the 16-year-old participant.
  > 💡 Add a TakeWalks.com citation, fix icon rendering, and correct age requirements to match participants.

### ✅ `f5d428fd…` — score 7/10
- Image sources are not credited to legitimate royalty-free platforms as required.
- No research sources or references are cited for destination information.
- The PDF content does not explicitly display or caption embedded images.
  > 💡 Add image source attributions and cite research references within the PDF.

### ✅ `2fa8e956…` — score 6/10
- Did not list all wineries within a one-hour drive as explicitly requested.
- Document lacks visible citations to required online sources.
- Formatting requirements like purple grape text and footer are not verifiable.
  > 💡 Clarify scope, add explicit source citations, and verify all required formatting and footer are applied.

### ✅ `0e4fe8cd…` — score 6/10
- Fourth day return itinerary tab is missing.
- Incorrect airport code used; Istanbul Airport should be IST, not ISL.
- Some logistics rows lack provider details or links.
  > 💡 Add a complete June 4 return tab, correct airport codes, and fill all missing providers and links.

### ✅ `a0ef404e…` — score 8/10
- Document contains a truncated sentence near the finalization step.
- Text response references Python code not included in the output.
  > 💡 Review the document for truncation errors and remove unnecessary references to code generation.

### ✅ `b7a5912e…` — score 6/10
- Payment method revenue totals do not reconcile with total reported revenue.
- Booking source revenue totals do not reconcile with total reported revenue.
  > 💡 Recalculate booking source and payment summaries to fully reconcile with total revenue.

### ✅ `aa071045…` — score 8/10
- Input file Damage list.xlsx was listed as a produced deliverable.
- Revenue by damage type sheet is not clearly shown in the preview.
  > 💡 Exclude input files from deliverables and ensure all required report sheets are clearly labeled.

### ✅ `476db143…` — score 9/10
- Notification email is generic and not personalized to individual residents or units.
  > 💡 Consider personalizing the email with resident names and unit numbers for clarity and professionalism.

### ✅ `61f546a8…` — score 6/10
- Appliance installations lack the required extra installation day in the schedules.
- Generated output claims Python code but no code is actually provided.
- Vendor scheduling rules are not explicitly validated against the provided vendor availability document.
  > 💡 Add explicit installation days for appliances and include verifiable scheduling justification or code used to generate the PDF.

### ✅ `f3351922…` — score 7/10
- Email content is truncated and ends mid-sentence.
- Email lacks a closing paragraph and professional signature.
  > 💡 Complete the email text and add a proper closing and signature before delivery.

### ✅ `61717508…` — score 5/10
- Primary training deck is only three pages, not approximately ten pages.
- An extra internal policy PDF was produced but not requested.
- Generated response claimed completion despite missing required length.
  > 💡 Expand the main deck to ~10 pages and remove unrequested materials.

### ✅ `0ed38524…` — score 7/10
- Duplicate and inconsistent category labels appear, such as "General" versus "General ".
- Several typos and grammatical errors reduce professionalism.
- Talking points text appears truncated or incomplete.
  > 💡 Proofread for consistency, correct typos, and ensure all sections are complete.

### ❌ `87da214f…` — score 4/10
- No actual slide content or analysis is presented in the text response.
- Financial impact, dollar amounts, and percentages are not calculated or disclosed.
- PPTX content cannot be verified against requirements from the provided preview.
  > 💡 Include concrete analysis results with figures and summarize actual slide content in the response.

### ✅ `d025a41c…` — score 6/10
- Extra Case One, Two, Three files were produced but not requested.
- Content appears fabricated without referencing actual provided chat logs.
- Formatting requirements like bold titles and 1.5 spacing are not verifiable.
  > 💡 Only produce the requested document and base feedback strictly on provided case materials.

### ✅ `401a07f1…` — score 8/10
- Reference outlets are cited but explicit hyperlinks are not clearly visible.
  > 💡 Add clear clickable links to specific articles from each referenced outlet.

### ✅ `afe56d05…` — score 6/10
- Document appears significantly shorter than the required 2,200–2,300 words.
- External resources are mentioned but consistent hyperlinks and full attributions are unclear.
  > 💡 Expand the document to the required length and add clearly hyperlinked, properly attributed external sources throughout.

### ✅ `9a8c8e28…` — score 6/10
- Framework guide lacks visible bibliography with links.
- No clear mention of CMS changes handled by dev team.
- Training and Slack channel instructions are unclear or missing.
  > 💡 Add a bibliography, CMS responsibility notes, and explicit training and Slack contact instructions.

### ✅ `3a4c347c…` — score 6/10
- Text response is meta-description, not the requested proposal content.
- No clear evidence VT story is re-versioned for radio and podcast.
- Budget breakdown and freelancer costs not explicitly confirmed.
  > 💡 Include a concise summary of key proposal elements and explicitly confirm all required components.

### ✅ `ec2fccc9…` — score 6/10
- Secondary keywords list is missing at the end of the article.
- Pull quote caption is not clearly included at the bottom.
- H2 and H3 header formatting appears inconsistent or incomplete.
  > 💡 Add the missing SEO keyword list, a labeled pull quote caption, and properly formatted H2/H3 headings.

### ✅ `8c8fc328…` — score 5/10
- Basic script content is not visible for verification.
- Reference file was unnecessarily regenerated.
- Text response describes deliverable instead of summarizing script content.
  > 💡 Include a brief script excerpt and confirm timestamps and total runtime explicitly.

### ❌ `e222075d…` — score 4/10
- No 30-second H.264 1920x1080 video export was delivered.
- No scratch voiceover audio track was created or referenced.
- No music track selection or 30-second edit was provided.
  > 💡 Produce and export the full 30-second MP4 with scratch VO, music, and watermarked footage.

### ❌ `c94452e4…` — score 4/10
- No exported 15-second H.264 1920x1080 .mp4 spot was delivered.
- Task required an edited broadcast spot, not only pre-production documents.
- Music was referenced but not edited or synced to a final video.
  > 💡 Produce and export the actual 15-second finished video with music, supers, and pacing applied.

### ❌ `75401f7c…` — score 3/10
- No final edited .mp4 video was produced as required.
- Deliverables are planning documents, not the requested showreel output.
- Timeline uses only six shots, omitting much provided footage.
  > 💡 Produce and deliver the actual edited 1920x1080 H.264 MP4 showreel using the provided footage and audio.

### ❌ `a941b6d8…` — score 3/10
- No final composited video file was created or delivered.
- Core VFX tasks were documented but not actually executed.
- Stock smoke footage was not sourced or integrated.
  > 💡 Produce and deliver the finished teleportation VFX video matching all technical specifications.

### ❌ `8079e27d…` — score 3/10
- No S&P 500 company or sub-sector data populated; sheets contain zero rows.
- Task required leveraging public data, but only an empty framework was delivered.
- Several required analyses cannot be performed without populated metrics and index weights.
  > 💡 Populate all 500 companies and sub-sectors with real public-market data and calculated summaries.

### ✅ `e21cd746…` — score 5/10
- Numerous spelling and encoding errors reduce professionalism and client readiness.
- Several private targets lack clear valuations or specific customer disclosures.
- Public comparables multiples lack sourcing and valuation date context.
  > 💡 Correct errors, tighten company data, and add dated sourcing to ensure client-ready quality.

### ✅ `9e8607e7…` — score 9/10
- Slides lack explicit data sources or citations.
- Limited detail on legal structuring of operating versus investing entities.
  > 💡 Add a short appendix with sources and high-level entity structuring considerations.

### ❌ `c7d83f01…` — score 4/10
- Required Python notebook file is missing from delivered files.
- No executable code provided to verify implementations or methodologies.
- Summary claims results without presenting actual analysis or findings.
  > 💡 Provide the full Jupyter notebook with code, analysis, and embedded visuals.

### ✅ `46b34f78…` — score 6/10
- Issuer analyses lack specific named companies and actionable bond identifiers.
- Reference data are not explicitly used or cited as required.
- Portfolio sizing and dollar return impacts are not quantified.
  > 💡 Add named issuers with specific bonds, cite reference data, and quantify trade sizing and returns.

### ✅ `a1963a68…` — score 7/10
- Lacks explicit data citations and sources supporting claims and market sizing.
- Does not clearly reference required Korean transport authorities and taxi associations.
- Core content slide count and scope are not explicitly confirmed against requirements.
  > 💡 Add cited data, reference mandated Korean sources, and clearly label required core slides.

### ✅ `b78fd844…` — score 5/10
- Report content is severely truncated and lacks required detailed analysis.
- Both-project capital allocation discussion is missing or insufficient.
- Risk mitigation and contingency plans are incomplete.
  > 💡 Provide a complete, multi-page report fully addressing all specified analytical and strategic requirements.

### ✅ `4520f882…` — score 6/10
- Text response is truncated and incomplete.
- No verification of spreadsheet formulas or CBA rule implementation.
- Compliance checks are described but not evidenced in file preview.
  > 💡 Provide a brief walkthrough confirming specific CBA rules implemented and key formulas used.

### ✅ `ec591973…` — score 5/10
- Slide content is not visible, preventing verification against strategic requirements.
- Response includes meta commentary instead of the actual executive slide content.
- Mentions Python code generation without providing or validating it.
  > 💡 Include the actual slide content or a detailed slide preview for verification.

### ✅ `62f04c2f…` — score 7/10
- Excel form lacks signature and date spaces for Sales Rep, GM, and Sales Manager.
- Excel form missing bottom note stating prepaid freight and restocking fee requirement.
  > 💡 Add required signature sections and fee notice to the bottom of the Excel form.

### ❌ `3f821c2d…` — score 3/10
- Sales plan values are not populated and do not match the fixed monthly channel plan.
- BOM, EOM inventory, turns, and formulas are largely missing or blank.
- Omni and LY comparison tables are missing and not formatted side-by-side.
  > 💡 Rebuild the Excel with fully populated sales, inventory flows, formulas, and complete Stores, E-commerce, Omni, and LY tables.

### ❌ `e996036e…` — score 4/10
- Cash flow timing by quarter is not shown or calculated.
- Marketing allowance and wholesale revenue calculations use incorrect shipment values.
- Required visual chart comparing scenario favorability is missing.
  > 💡 Recalculate using correct shipment totals, add quarterly cash flow timing, and include a comparison chart.

### ❌ `6dcae3f5…` — score 4/10
- Email lists 60 flagged residents with missing names shown as None.
- Evidence is lacking that PGY milestone attainment per ACGME requirements was correctly calculated.
- Text response is truncated and incomplete at the end.
  > 💡 Correct resident identification, verify ACGME requirement calculations, and resubmit complete files and narrative.

### ✅ `1aecc095…` — score 6/10
- Telehealth Roadmap lacks a true Visio-style visual workflow with shapes and decision flow.
- An extra unrequested file was produced, causing potential confusion.
- Email content was not previewed to confirm length and messaging requirements.
  > 💡 Revise the roadmap into a clear visual flow diagram and remove unrequested files.

### ❌ `0353ee0c…` — score 3/10
- The output provides only a plan, not the required exhaustive compiled content.
- The PDF content is not shown to include consolidated exposures, conditions, locations, and dates.
- Claims of reviewing Document B links are unsupported by extracted information.
  > 💡 Produce the actual PDF content with full consolidated lists derived explicitly from each Document B link.

### ✅ `40a8c4b1…` — score 5/10
- Excel schedule content not verified against detailed priorities and conditions.
- No evidence holidays were excluded from Wednesday sessions.
- Alternate lab dates and notes not demonstrated in output.
  > 💡 Include a brief validation summary confirming key scheduling rules were met in the workbook.

### ❌ `4d1a8410…` — score 3/10
- Master schedule lacks required detailed table, timings, breaks, lunch, and tour rotations.
- Personal itineraries are vague and missing full time-by-time schedules.
- Interview constraints and physician-specific breaks are not demonstrably implemented.
  > 💡 Provide fully detailed Word tables with explicit times, rotations, breaks, lunch, tours, and applicant assignments.

### ✅ `8c823e32…` — score 7/10
- Policy number contains placeholder text rather than an assigned identifier.
- FAA airspace limitations and waiver processes are not explicitly detailed.
- PDF length suggests limited depth for comprehensive General Manual inclusion.
  > 💡 Assign final identifiers and expand FAA compliance and operational detail before manual adoption.

### ✅ `eb54f575…` — score 7/10
- PDF contains multiple typographical artifacts such as stray 'n' characters.
- Terminal Ballistics section appears truncated in preview, risking incomplete content.
- Conclusion & Final Recommendation section is missing or not clearly shown.
  > 💡 Proofread the PDF, fix formatting artifacts, and ensure all required sections are fully included.

### ✅ `11e1b169…` — score 8/10
- Bullet points render as encoding artifacts instead of standard symbols.
- KRS 503.090 section appears truncated or incomplete in the preview.
- Minor formatting inconsistencies reduce field readability.
  > 💡 Fix encoding, verify full KRS 503.090 content, and standardize formatting for clarity.

### ✅ `22c0809b…` — score 8/10
- Bullet symbols render as placeholder glyphs, reducing professional appearance.
- Unit-specific Midwest context and resource constraints are minimally reflected.
- Narrative claims reference Python code not included in the response.
  > 💡 Refine formatting and explicitly tailor language to the department’s regional and staffing realities.

### ✅ `bf68f2ad…` — score 5/10
- Planned_Hours of 60 contradicts stated 30 hours per day capacity.
- Cumulative backlog at week 4 does not match stated 438.81 hours.
- Plan does not show when days or overtime are reduced after recovery.
  > 💡 Recalculate capacity correctly, align backlog values, and explicitly model step-down to five and four-day weeks.

### ✅ `efca245f…` — score 6/10
- Spreadsheet lacks open PO balances and cumulative recovery tracking.
- Truck Grill Guard production does not reflect 100 units per week requirement.
- Expanded capacity assumptions conflict with stated 135 sets/day upgrade.
  > 💡 Revise the Excel plan to include PO balances, correct capacity logic, and validate all demand assumptions.

### ✅ `68d8d901…` — score 6/10
- Excel content not shown to verify required three tabs and detailed data.
- Production sequences may lack sub-step durations and assigned personnel per dryer.
- Work schedule feasibility calculations for four-week target not explicitly demonstrated.
  > 💡 Provide a preview or summary of each Excel tab with key calculations and assignments.

### ✅ `bd72994f…` — score 6/10
- No luxury brand or collection name is specified anywhere.
- Looks appear generic and not sourced from an official 2025 resort collection.
- PDF lacks visual imagery typically expected for styled looks.
  > 💡 Specify a single luxury brand, reference its official Resort 2025 collection, and include visual look imagery.

### ✅ `211d0093…` — score 8/10
- Response claims Python code is provided, but no code appears in the output.
- PDF tables lack visible row lines, reducing clarity for handwriting entries.
  > 💡 Remove the code reference and add clearer table grid lines for easier daily use.

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

### ✅ `45c6237b…` — score 6/10
- Next Season Assortment lacks embedded vendor images from ORDER LIST.pdf.
- Purchase Order Summary appears incomplete, missing some listed shirt SKUs.
- Summary table header includes placeholder text rather than finalized labels.
  > 💡 Embed vendor images and ensure the summary table fully lists all SKUs with finalized headers.

### ✅ `cecac8f9…` — score 7/10
- Team launch deck lacks specific Black Friday promotional offers and execution details.
- Targets reference USD in comparison file, conflicting with UK store context.
- Launch deck content is very brief for all-day, multi-day instructional use.
  > 💡 Expand the launch deck with detailed offers, customer scenarios, and clearer UK-aligned targets.

### ✅ `8f9e8bcd…` — score 8/10
- One suggested response section contains a visible truncation or typo.
- Suggested responses are high-level and lack exact sample phrasing.
- Practice section could include more complete objection-response pairs.
  > 💡 Add polished, fully written response scripts and proofread for minor text errors.

### ✅ `0fad6023…` — score 7/10
- Total Feet Used appears uncalculated or missing a formula.
- Pan layout is a basic table, not a clear visual case representation.
- Printer-friendly formatting settings are not clearly evident.
  > 💡 Add feet calculation, enhance visual pan blocks, and explicitly set print layout and scaling.

### ✅ `02314fc6…` — score 8/10
- Checklist lacks version control or revision date for document governance.
  > 💡 Add version number, revision date, and owner to support audit control and updates.

### ✅ `4d61a19a…` — score 6/10
- Excel template lacks store projection and sign-off fields.
- Excel columns are unlabeled and poorly structured.
- PowerPoint sample form with mock data is not verifiable.
  > 💡 Add clear projection and sign-off sections, fix column headers, and include a visible mock-filled form slide.

### ✅ `6436ff9e…` — score 6/10
- Revised form contains an obvious typo, violating the typo-free requirement.
- QA preview shows truncated or incomplete rating item text.
- Demographic questions are not clearly visible in the preview.

### ✅ `8a7b6fca…` — score 6/10
- Claims complete Python code provided, but no code is included.
- PDF contains multiple typos and formatting issues reducing professionalism.
- Failure handling and rerouting logic are only minimally detailed.
  > 💡 Revise the PDF with corrected labels, clearer symbols, and include the promised source code.

### ✅ `40a99a31…` — score 7/10
- Minimum six cameras not explicitly specified or quantified.
- Pressure mats quantity per mill not clearly documented.
- Safety standards compliance lacks specific certifications or standards.
  > 💡 Explicitly list quantities and cite applicable safety standards to fully meet requirements.

### ✅ `b9665ca1…` — score 6/10
- PLC indicator wiring labels ES1.SIG, ES2.SIG, ES3.SIG, and STP.DI are missing.
- Detailed E‑stop channel wire labels ESx.K1-1/K1-2/K2-1/K2-2 are not shown.
- Series wiring path between S11, S12, and S22 is not clearly depicted.
  > 💡 Revise the schematic to explicitly show all required wire labels and PLC/pilot light connections.

### ✅ `c6269101…` — score 6/10
- No explicit capability metrics or stability conclusions are documented in the response.
- The process with greatest variability is not clearly identified or justified.
- Recommendations are high-level and not clearly tied to analyzed data.
  > 💡 Include explicit findings, identify the highest-variability process with evidence, and link recommendations directly to results.

### ✅ `be830ca0…` — score 6/10
- ANOVA results and statistical significance conclusions are not explicitly stated.
- A3 Analysis specifies Minitab charts, but charts appear generated with Python.
- Processing rate target selection lacks justification from baseline data.
  > 💡 Explicitly document statistical results, tool alignment, and data-based justification within the presentation.

### ✅ `cd9efc18…` — score 6/10
- PDF length is seven pages, below the required eight to eleven pages.
- Execution section with witnesses and notary is not clearly shown in the file.
- Maximum trust duration of twenty-one years is not explicitly stated.
  > 💡 Expand the document to full length and add complete execution and trust duration provisions.

### ✅ `a97369c7…` — score 8/10
- Introductory response referenced Python code unnecessarily.
- Minor typographical truncation appears in the memo preview.
  > 💡 Remove extraneous references to code generation and proofread final document formatting.

### ✅ `3f625cb2…` — score 8/10
- Case law discussion is limited to one enforcement action.
- Legal options section lacks detail on private rights of action.
- Text response is procedural rather than substantive.
  > 💡 Expand legal options and remedies, clarifying enforcement versus private claims.

### ✅ `aad21e4c…` — score 7/10
- Schedule A capitalization table not clearly shown in the file preview.
- Anti-dilution mechanism lacks explicit fully diluted definition and calculation mechanics.
- Minority consent rights scope may be unusually broad for common stock.
  > 💡 Clarify fully diluted ownership mechanics and explicitly include a detailed Schedule A cap table.

### ✅ `8314d1b1…` — score 5/10
- Memo lacks citations to Delaware cases and statutory provisions.
- Analysis is superficial and appears incomplete for required 2025 DGCL amendments.
- Concrete risk‑mitigation recommendations are not clearly developed.
  > 💡 Expand the memo with detailed, cited legal analysis and specific, actionable recommendations.

### ❌ `5e2b6aab…` — score 4/10
- STEP models appear conceptual placeholders lacking manufacturable detail.
- Required sub-assembly drawing is missing from the PDF package.
- Key requirements like sealing, battery access, and thermal design are not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Provide detailed, verifiable CAD models and drawings explicitly addressing all stated functional requirements.

### ❌ `46fc494e…` — score 3/10
- No transient thermal calculations or numerical methodology are provided.
- Back-face temperatures remain at 25 °C, which is physically implausible.
- Assessment of limit exceedance and mitigation recommendations are missing.
  > 💡 Perform and document actual transient calculations and update plots, tables, and conclusions accordingly.

### ✅ `3940b7e7…` — score 6/10
- Report lacks explicit Discussion and Conclusion sections with aerodynamic implications.
- Key performance metrics like lift, drag, and forces are not clearly summarized.
- Text response describes deliverable but omits substantive analysis content.
  > 💡 Add explicit discussion, conclusions, and summarized aerodynamic force metrics aligned to the original objectives.

### ✅ `8077e700…` — score 7/10
- No graphical or tabulated results are provided for AISI 1045 steel.
- Experimental Procedure lacks sufficient detail on quenching conditions and sample preparation.
- Metallurgical interpretation relies on assumptions without cross-checking against provided dataset scope.
  > 💡 Add explicit AISI 1045 figures/tables and expand procedural details to fully meet reporting requirements.

### ✅ `5a2d70da…` — score 6/10
- Budget subtotal, tax, and grand total are not shown in the Master Tool List file.
- Manufacturing steps sheet lacks clear routing columns and detailed operations.
- No evidence of STEP model or 2D drawing review is reflected.
  > 💡 Add explicit cost totals with tax, expand the process routing, and reference drawing-driven features.

### ✅ `74d6e8b0…` — score 7/10
- Explicit in-text citations and a reference list are not clearly shown in the document.
- The response claims included Python code, but no code is provided.
- Evidence sources are referenced generally but not tied to specific recommendations.
  > 💡 Add clear in-text citations with a complete reference list and remove or include the promised code.

### ✅ `81db15ff…` — score 8/10
- Text mentions Python code but no code is included in the response.
- Strategic Recommendation sheet contains an initial blank row.
  > 💡 Remove the code reference and tidy formatting to improve clarity and polish.

### ✅ `61b0946a…` — score 8/10
- Text response is truncated and ends mid-sentence.
- Original task did not explicitly request creation of specific file types.
- Cost assumptions are summarized but not fully detailed in the narrative.
  > 💡 Ensure the written response is complete and explicitly align deliverables to stated task requirements.

### ❌ `61e7b9c6…` — score 3/10
- Formulary is largely empty and lacks required FDA-approved and off-label medications.
- Bijuva is misidentified with incorrect generic components.
- Estimated monthly prices are missing for most entries.
  > 💡 Populate a complete, accurate formulary with correct drug details and prices for all required therapies.

### ✅ `c9bf9801…` — score 6/10
- 4-month and 8-month evaluation forms were not produced or linked.
- Guide lacks a clearly detailed monthly timeline with milestones and deliverables.
- Appendix does not visibly reference or label all required documents and templates.
  > 💡 Add missing evaluation forms, expand the monthly timeline, and complete the appendix with labeled references.

### ✅ `f1be6436…` — score 5/10
- No embedded screenshots within the Word document sections as explicitly required.
- Total cost breakdown lacks department versus discretionary fund calculations per physician.
- Dr. Doe’s early departure constraints are not reflected in flights or lodging dates.
  > 💡 Embed real-time screenshots, adjust itineraries for Dr. Doe, and add a full funding breakdown table.

### ✅ `41f6ef59…` — score 8/10
- Spreadsheet preview does not clearly show dropdowns or checkboxes as specified.
- Text response references Python code that is not included or needed.
  > 💡 Add visible data validation dropdowns or checkboxes in the Excel sheet for follow-up fields.

### ✅ `6d2c8e55…` — score 8/10
- Article PDFs contain only links, not full downloaded articles.
- Room reservation details are not summarized in the email body.
- Email preview appears truncated, risking incomplete content.
  > 💡 Include full article PDFs where available and clearly summarize room locations in the email.

### ✅ `4b98ccce…` — score 6/10
- Excel sheets lack visible signed name and employee ID confirmation.
- No evidence Excel column names exactly match Patient Information Sheet fields.
- Letters' inclusion of exact HIPAA clauses cannot be verified from preview.
  > 💡 Add visible signatures with Jane Croft ID 700100912 and verify columns and clauses explicitly.

### ✅ `ef8719da…` — score 8/10
- Hyperlinks to background articles are not clearly visible in the document preview.
- Text response summarizes deliverable instead of presenting pitch content directly.
  > 💡 Ensure the document includes a clearly labeled section with explicit hyperlinks to all cited sources.

### ✅ `3baa0009…` — score 7/10
- Article does not describe negative global growth, only slower positive growth.
- Task required emphasis on negative growth caused by trade war, which is not met.
- Sources are referenced generally without direct attribution or quotations.
  > 💡 Clarify whether the focus is negative growth or negative impact and revise accordingly.

### ✅ `5d0feb24…` — score 6/10
- Does not clearly reference or interpret the specific arXiv study 2401.11815.
- Editorial feedback remains largely generic rather than study-specific.
- Claims Python code generation, which is unnecessary and confusing.
  > 💡 Directly tie edits and commentary to the methods and novelty of the cited arXiv paper.

### ❌ `6974adea…` — score 4/10
- Text response describes intent rather than delivering the required article content.
- Article length, SEO elements, and formatting are not evidenced.
- Use of interviews, Guardian style, and UK English cannot be verified.
  > 💡 Provide the complete article text and confirm it meets all specified requirements.

### ✅ `1a78e076…` — score 6/10
- Document does not meet the required 10–15 page length.
- Limited quantitative prevalence, morbidity, mortality, and cost data are presented.
- Evidence of up-to-date, cited references is insufficiently demonstrated.
  > 💡 Expand content with detailed data, citations, and analysis to meet length and evidence requirements.

### ✅ `1b9ec237…` — score 8/10
- Slide count limited to 20 is not explicitly verified.
  > 💡 Add a brief confirmation of total slide count and key guideline versions used.

### ✅ `0112fc9b…` — score 8/10
- Cranial nerve VII not addressed despite facial impact.
- Plan justification for no imaging could be more explicit.
- Driving after head injury not clearly addressed in counseling.
  > 💡 Add clearer neuro justification, driving restrictions, and explicitly address facial nerve assessment.

### ✅ `e6429658…` — score 7/10
- Text response claims Python code is provided, but no code is included.
- AbbVie assistance application appears incomplete and only one page long.
- Appeal letter content and page length are not verified in the response.
  > 💡 Include the full appeal letter text and ensure the assistance application matches the complete official form.

### ✅ `b5d2e6f1…` — score 8/10
- Sales by Store tab content and headers are not shown in the preview.
  > 💡 Include a preview or confirmation of the Sales by Store tab structure and totals.

### ✅ `f841ddcf…` — score 6/10
- Summary sheets contain narrative text within data ranges, breaking clean table structure.
- Percent shipped is shown as decimals instead of formatted percentages.
- Delayed June POs sheet appears truncated with incomplete account names.
  > 💡 Reformat both summaries as clean Excel tables with proper headers, percentage formatting, and complete account data.

### ✅ `1137e2bb…` — score 9/10
- Text response describes deliverables rather than summarizing actual analytical findings.
  > 💡 Include a brief findings summary directly in the response in addition to the file descriptions.

### ✅ `c3525d4d…` — score 7/10
- Removed stores are not identified or listed anywhere.
- Store status marking appears incorrect with many existing stores labeled ADDED.
- Response does not explicitly confirm example stores like 4099 and 3737.
  > 💡 Add a clear added vs removed store comparison and correct store status labeling.

### ✅ `9a0d8d36…` — score 6/10
- Presentation content cannot be verified because no slide text or calculations are shown.
- Text response is meta-descriptive rather than substantive client-facing content.
- Step-by-step tax calculations are not demonstrably included or validated.
  > 💡 Include a slide-by-slide summary or calculation examples to clearly evidence required content.

### ✅ `664a42e5…` — score 7/10
- Claims runnable Python code included but no code is shown.
- Slide content cannot be verified from the response.
- 2025 gift tax exclusion amount is not explicitly stated.
  > 💡 Include the actual Python code and summarize key slide content with specific figures.

### ✅ `feb5eefc…` — score 6/10
- PDF lacks a clear client-specific scenario illustrating dollar outcomes for each trust.
- No explicit comparative table is visible despite being promised in the response.
- Professional recommendation is not clearly identifiable in the provided pages.
  > 💡 Add a quantified scenario, comparison table, and explicit recommendation section to fully meet requirements.

### ✅ `3600de06…` — score 7/10
- Slide content cannot be verified for required FINRA and NAIC citations.
- No explicit evidence slides include detailed penalty and surrender charge comparisons.
- Risk-return and growth impact analysis depth is not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Add explicit FINRA and NAIC citations and detailed comparative analysis on each required slide.

### ✅ `c657103b…` — score 6/10
- Excel lacks explicit tax calculations, conversion amounts, and projected tax savings.
- Initial IRA balance does not match stated $3.5M year-end 2025 assumption.
- PPT template requirement for business digital tunnel theme is unverified.
  > 💡 Add detailed tax, conversion, and RMD factor calculations, correct assumptions, and confirm required PPT template usage.

### ✅ `ae0c1093…` — score 7/10
- Observation form lacks three solid handwritten lines beneath each header.
  > 💡 Revise the observation form to include three solid horizontal lines under every header.

### ✅ `f9f82549…` — score 6/10
- Only one PowerPoint was produced instead of separate files per flowchart header.
- PowerPoint content cannot be verified to map explicitly to each flowchart item.
- Flowchart lacks explicit reference to deposit gambling risk controls.
  > 💡 Create individual PowerPoint files for each flowchart header with clearly mapped incident details.

### ✅ `57b2cdf2…` — score 9/10
- Photograph timestamps are not individually referenced within the surveillance timeline.
  > 💡 Add brief photo identifiers with timestamps to corresponding surveillance entries for stronger evidentiary clarity.

### ❌ `84322284…` — score 4/10
- Text response provides an outline instead of the required detailed investigative analysis.
- No verified evidence the PDF contains a reconstructed timeline and professional assessment.
- Findings are summarized generically without referencing specific logged events or dates.
  > 💡 Include a substantive written analysis with explicit timeline reconstruction and corroborated observations.

### ✅ `a46d5cd2…` — score 8/10
- Text response summarizes deliverables instead of presenting report content directly.
  > 💡 Include a brief executive summary excerpt from the final report in the text response.

### ✅ `6241e678…` — score 6/10
- Schedule dates are unclear and largely unreadable in the PDF.
- Several unrequested tasks were added without client approval.
- Color-coding and client review durations are not verifiable from the file.
  > 💡 Clarify dates visually, remove scope creep tasks, and explicitly label colors and review windows.

### ✅ `e14e32ba…` — score 8/10
- Images are website links, not actual photos of establishments.
- Minor text truncation or typo appears in Sarge’s bio section.
  > 💡 Embed actual establishment photos and proofread final document before delivery.

### ✅ `b1a79ce1…` — score 8/10
- Moodboard image content is not verifiable from preview alone.
- Resolution may be low for high-quality printing or large displays.
  > 💡 Include higher-resolution output and clearly identifiable photographic references for easier creative alignment.

### ❌ `e4f664ea…` — score 4/10
- No screenplay text is presented in the response.
- Output describes intent instead of delivering the requested script.
- Referenced Python code is not included or verifiable.
  > 💡 Provide the full production-ready screenplay content directly or include the actual generated PDF contents.

### ✅ `a079d38f…` — score 6/10
- Setup time does not match stated 1–2 hours per shoot day requirement.
- Excel lacks a clear total shoot days and total hours summary.
- Cost sheet assumptions are not explicitly tied to the provided service rates.
  > 💡 Add a summary section calculating total shoot days, hours, and costs using stated assumptions.

### ❌ `02aa1805…` — score 3/10
- No Illinois EPA factsheet data was pulled or reviewed.
- Excel file contains placeholder rows instead of real well records.
- No viable wells were identified or recommended to the manager.
  > 💡 Populate the workbook with actual IEPA well data and clearly recommend qualifying wells.

### ✅ `fd6129bd…` — score 7/10
- Change Request Form is provided as a template, not a completed form.
  > 💡 Provide a fully completed example Change Request Form aligned to the SOP.

### ✅ `ce864f41…` — score 5/10
- Supplemental narrative provides no actual findings or metrics answering the three questions.
- Text response is truncated and incomplete at the end.
- Excel analysis results are not summarized or validated in the narrative.
  > 💡 Include concrete utilization percentages, named risks, and project overruns clearly summarized from the Excel analysis.

### ✅ `58ac1cc5…` — score 8/10
- Risk assessment justification for accepting report-only endotoxin lacks supporting historical data.
- Change control proposes minor risk without referencing specific patient or process impact criteria.
  > 💡 Add historical endotoxin trend data and explicit patient/process risk rationale to strengthen approval.

### ✅ `3c19c6d1…` — score 6/10
- PowerPoint slide contents are described but not evidenced against required slide details.
- Slide 4 progress summary does not show or reference actual tabular data.
- Response includes truncated text and irrelevant mention of Python code.
  > 💡 Provide explicit slide-by-slide content evidence and remove extraneous or truncated implementation details.

### ❌ `a99d85fc…` — score 4/10
- Monthly rent matrix is missing entirely.
- Annual rent matrix lacks calculated values, totals, and escalation formulas.
- Workbook does not include notes, color-coding, or dynamic calculator functionality.
  > 💡 Fully implement formulas, monthly detail, totals, and formatting to meet all specified requirements.

### ❌ `55ddb773…` — score 4/10
- Violation types and qualifying questions were not listed on the form.
- Form improperly references attached PDF instead of embedding violation questions.
- Architectural regulations lack individual listed items and questions.
  > 💡 Fully transcribe all violation questions with individual lined entries directly into the questionnaire.

### ❌ `1e5a1d7f…` — score 3/10
- The .docx file lacks the required four-column task schedule table.
- PM duties are not translated into scheduled tasks or weekly cycles.
- Week-of-the-month assignments and time-of-day details are missing.
  > 💡 Populate the document with a complete table mapping PM duties to times and monthly cycles.

### ✅ `0419f1c3…` — score 9/10
- Acknowledgement time performance was not quantitatively measured in the summary section.
  > 💡 Include explicit acknowledgement time metrics from the work order data to fully align with standards.

### ✅ `ed2bc14c…` — score 8/10
- Five departure categories are referenced but not explicitly listed in the memo.
- Communication plan provides concepts but not sample email copy.
  > 💡 Add a brief table listing all five departure categories and include short sample email drafts.

### ✅ `46bc7238…` — score 7/10
- One-page flyer template example is not clearly included as a dedicated page.
- Next Steps section is not explicitly presented in the PDF preview.
- Some sections appear summarized rather than fully developed for junior agent use.
  > 💡 Add a dedicated flyer template page and a clear Next Steps section with execution guidance.

### ✅ `2d06bc0a…` — score 9/10
- Escrow clause allows an alternative title company contrary to the First American requirement.
  > 💡 Revise escrow section to require First American Title without alternative options.

### ✅ `fd3ad420…` — score 7/10
- Commission splits lack specific percentage figures.
- Bullet characters display encoding artifacts in the PDF.
- State-specific legal or compliance disclaimers are absent.
  > 💡 Add explicit percentage examples and clean formatting to strengthen clarity and professionalism.

### ✅ `0818571f…` — score 5/10
- Listings are illustrative and not verified active Crexi or LoopNet listings from June 2025.
- Photos and maps are placeholders, not actual property marketing materials.
- Key criteria like traffic counts and listing source citations are missing.
  > 💡 Replace illustrative content with verified active listings, real photos, maps, and source citations from Crexi or LoopNet.

### ✅ `6074bba3…` — score 8/10
- Comparable properties lack addresses and key attributes for defensibility.
- Data sources for pricing and comps are not explicitly cited.
- Lease terms and actual occupancy details are assumed, not verified.
  > 💡 Add comp addresses, cite data sources, and verify lease and occupancy details to strengthen credibility.

### ✅ `5ad0c554…` — score 7/10
- Does not identify specific items or numbers from the 132 Things REALTORS Do for Buyers document.
- The brochure does not clearly demonstrate a double-sided layout within the Word file.
- Visual banner is provided but not embedded or referenced within the document content.
  > 💡 Revise the brochure to cite specific 132 Things items, embed visuals in the document, and format clearly for double-sided printing.

### ❌ `11593a50…` — score 4/10
- Listings are not in Massapequa Park 11762 and use an incorrect city and ZIP.
- Property photos are broken placeholders instead of usable listing images.
- Map is schematic and not a true location-based pin map.
  > 💡 Rebuild using verified MLSLI data for Massapequa Park with real photos and a geocoded map.

### ✅ `94925f49…` — score 6/10
- School data lacks explicit source citations and quantitative academic metrics like gifted percentages.
- Nearby home listings appear generic and not verifiably sourced from MLS platforms.
- One report shows truncated or incomplete home pricing information.
  > 💡 Add clear data citations, complete quantitative metrics, and verified MLS-based home listings.

### ✅ `90f37ff3…` — score 6/10
- Comparable data lacks lease dates or confirmation within the past three years.
- Sources for market data like LoopNet or Crexi are not cited.
- Addresses are incomplete and lack full street numbers.
  > 💡 Add dated, sourced comparables with full addresses to strengthen credibility and compliance.

### ✅ `d3d255b2…` — score 8/10
- Text response describes deliverable rather than presenting substantive report content.
- Counteroffer specifics are not clearly confirmed in the previewed PDF.
  > 💡 Include a brief excerpt summarizing the recommended counteroffer and rationale in the text response.

### ❌ `1bff4551…` — score 4/10
- Includes non–African American acts, conflicting with program focus.
- Several selections lack clear representation in the Institute’s collection.
- PDF contains typos, awkward phrasing, and truncated content.
  > 💡 Revise the set list to feature only African American rock artists clearly represented in the collection and proofread the PDF.

### ❌ `650adcb1…` — score 4/10
- Color-coding key is not visible on the first Excel tab.
- Many days have zero interns working, violating the two-intern daily coverage requirement.
- Color formatting cannot be verified from the file content preview.
  > 💡 Add a visible key, adjust schedules to ensure daily coverage, and verify all required color coding.

### ✅ `01d7e53e…` — score 6/10
- Primary day-to-day contact names and details are not clearly identified.
- Signatory structure and authority for City representatives appear unclear or potentially duplicative.
  > 💡 Add explicit contact information and clarify signature blocks and authority for each party.

### ✅ `a73fbc98…` — score 6/10
- No evidence vendors selling similar goods were separated to ensure product variety.
- Electricity needs were not clearly mapped to green power-enabled tables.
- Specific adjacency requests were not demonstrated as honored in assignments.
  > 💡 Provide a brief justification table showing how preferences, electricity, and product variety were satisfied.

### ✅ `0ec25916…` — score 6/10
- Document is not formatted as a clear two-column by four-row table.
- Encoding artifacts '(cid:127)' appear, reducing professionalism and clarity.
- Guiding points and clinical prompts are not clearly separated by columns.
  > 💡 Reformat into a clean two-column table and remove encoding errors before final distribution.

### ✅ `116e791e…` — score 8/10
- Typographical error in pain outcome uses incorrect symbol (£3/10).
- Neurovascular diagnosis terminology does not match standard NANDA wording.
- PACU-specific anesthesia recovery assessments are not explicitly included.
  > 💡 Correct terminology and add brief PACU recovery assessments to strengthen accuracy and completeness.

### ✅ `dd724c67…` — score 5/10
- Facility list is incomplete and does not include all Long Island hospitals and rehabilitation facilities.
- Rehabilitation and skilled nursing facilities are largely missing or underrepresented.
- TFU timeframes appear generalized and lack explicit alignment with ACO REACH PY 2025 specifications.
  > 💡 Expand the facility list comprehensively and align TFU guidance precisely with CMS ACO REACH PY 2025 definitions.

### ✅ `7151c60a…` — score 6/10
- Pre-screening checklist preview shows no table with required elements and tracking columns.
- Checklist does not demonstrate page numbers in the footer.
- Fax cover sheet content is truncated, missing verification of required options and confidentiality statement.
  > 💡 Add the full checklist table with all required elements, page numbers, and verify complete fax cover sheet content.

### ❌ `90edba97…` — score 3/10
- Annual monthly lab values were not entered into the tracker spreadsheet.
- Patient-specific monthly treatment or medication changes were not documented.
- Deliverables describe frameworks instead of completing required data entry tasks.
  > 💡 Populate the Excel tracker with all patients’ monthly labs and document specific standing-order medication changes per month.

### ✅ `91060ff0…` — score 6/10
- Poster lacks meaningful visuals like icons, diagrams, or clear tables.
- Formatting shows encoding artifacts instead of proper bullet points.
- Product comparisons are minimal and lack clear visual differentiation.
  > 💡 Add clear visuals, fix formatting artifacts, and include a comparative treatment table with icons.

### ✅ `8384083a…` — score 7/10
- Ozempic SIG includes 1 mg weekly, incompatible with listed 2 mg pen dosing.
- Miebo drop-count assumption may be inaccurate and audit-sensitive.
- NDCs listed are not labeled as examples and may vary by package.
  > 💡 Clarify dosing assumptions per package and note variability or provide alternative days’ supply scenarios.

### ✅ `045aba2e…` — score 8/10
- Checklists lack explicit California law or regulation citations.
- No staff role delineation included despite original context.
- Quality assurance procedures could be more detailed for audits.
  > 💡 Add brief regulation citations and role ownership to each checklist item.

### ❌ `f2986c1f…` — score 3/10
- Medications were not identified using Drugs.com.
- Spreadsheet contains only NA placeholder data.
- No MedlinePlus counseling links provided.
  > 💡 Identify each pill from the image via Drugs.com and populate all spreadsheet fields accurately.

### ✅ `ffed32d8…` — score 6/10
- Comparative table omits required drug, vial, and reimbursement cost breakdowns.
- PDF contains formatting and typographical errors reducing professionalism.
- Revenue calculations lack transparency and supporting cost assumptions.
  > 💡 Revise the PDF to include full cost tables, clear calculations, and corrected formatting.

### ✅ `a69be28f…` — score 8/10
- Text references included Python code, but no code is actually provided.
- Narrative summary does not explicitly name top-performing fits per region.
  > 💡 Add a short written insight slide or summary calling out the top fits by region and gender.

### ✅ `788d2bc6…` — score 6/10
- TikTok Shop and influencer services are missing or insufficiently represented in the deck.
- Visual elements and open-source image usage are not clearly demonstrated.
- Referenced Python code is not included in the delivered output.
  > 💡 Add dedicated TikTok slides with visuals and include or remove references to missing code.

### ✅ `74ed1dc7…` — score 8/10
- Text response references Python code that is not actually included.
- Some proposed order types are revisions rather than clearly new additions.
  > 💡 Explicitly link each proposed order type to specific reference file challenges.

### ✅ `69a8ef86…` — score 7/10
- An extra unrequested file (Return Issues.docx) was produced.
- Internal process verification is unclear without previewed step-by-step actions, roles, and deadlines.
- External guidelines omit mention of 90-day RA closure and account notification.
  > 💡 Remove the extra file and ensure both documents explicitly cover all required timelines and responsibilities.

### ✅ `ab81b076…` — score 8/10
- Bullet characters display encoding artifacts (cid:127) instead of standard bullets.
- Visual guidance images are not clearly embedded within the PDF pages.
  > 💡 Fix bullet formatting and embed annotated visuals directly into the PDF for clarity.

### ❌ `d7cfae6f…` — score 4/10
- Recap analysis results are not shown or summarized in the response.
- Q1 timeframe is inconsistent, referencing Q1 2023 instead of Q1 2024.
- Deliverable relies on unseen code rather than clearly validated Excel content.
  > 💡 Include a clear summary of recap results and verify timelines and Excel outputs align with requirements.

### ❌ `19403010…` — score 3/10
- Sections 3, 4, and 5 are missing from the Excel recap.
- Required function-level tables with nine specified metrics are not included.
- Recap sheet structure does not match the one-page executive layout requested.
  > 💡 Add complete Sections 3–5 with function-level analyses and required metrics in a single structured recap sheet.

### ✅ `7ed932dd…` — score 6/10
- Only 10 SKUs included despite source file containing hundreds.
- Excel file lacks visible row highlighting for required pallets and urgent deliveries.
- Output does not clearly demonstrate coverage through July 31 for all SKUs.
  > 💡 Expand analysis to all SKUs and add explicit Excel formatting highlights and month-end coverage validation.

### ❌ `105f8ad0…` — score 4/10
- Competitor online research and sources are not documented or evidenced.
- Competitor averages are missing for rollerball rows, leaving recommendations incomplete.
- Output references Python code and reference files not actually provided.
  > 💡 Include documented competitor MSRP research and complete all benchmark calculations before recommending prices.

### ✅ `b57efde3…` — score 5/10
- Did not verify companies against the official Aqua Nor 2025 exhibitor list.
- Prospecting list is very small relative to hundreds of exhibitors.
- Methodology for reviewing each exhibitor’s portfolio is not documented.
  > 💡 Validate all leads directly from the official exhibitor list and expand coverage with documented review criteria.

### ✅ `15d37511…` — score 6/10
- Spreadsheet uses assumed pricing not explicitly sourced from the provided pricing email.
- Tiered pricing below and above 1,000 units is not separately shown.
- Revenue totals are not explicitly calculated or summarized.
  > 💡 Revise the spreadsheet to use documented pricing, show tier splits, and add explicit revenue totals.

### ✅ `bb863dd9…` — score 6/10
- WHO documentation link is not clearly included in the quotation file.
- Line-item table structure does not clearly show all required fields.
- Unclear whether all IEHK 2017 modules are fully and correctly listed.
  > 💡 Add the WHO reference link and ensure a complete, clearly labeled line-item table for all modules.

### ✅ `fe0d3941…` — score 8/10
- Workflow legend slide presence cannot be verified from available preview.
  > 💡 Add explicit confirmation or screenshot of the workflow legend slide content.

### ✅ `9efbcd35…` — score 6/10
- Lacks specific MSCI performance data or figures for Q1 2025.
- No citations or references to MSCI, WSJ, FT, or research sources.
- Document contains a truncated sentence indicating a formatting or generation error.
  > 💡 Add concrete MSCI performance figures with sources and correct the truncated content.

### ✅ `1d4672c8…` — score 6/10
- Used proxy data instead of extracting actual MSCI returns as required.
- Text response is truncated and incomplete.
- Correlation analysis relies on simulated data without disclosure in report.
  > 💡 Rebuild deliverables using actual MSCI monthly return data and provide a complete professional narrative.

### ✅ `4de6a529…` — score 6/10
- Several typos and formatting errors appear, including missing spaces and incorrect conviction text.
- Currency section contains duplicated headers and inconsistent QoQ arrow symbols.
- Not all sub-asset classes from the referenced opportunity set appear included.
  > 💡 Clean formatting, fix typos, standardize symbols, and ensure full coverage of all referenced sub-asset classes.

### ✅ `4c4dc603…` — score 6/10
- Used IM 2.0 instead of the specified Project Kenonic IM_1.pdf.
- Key numbers like target raise, IRR, and token supply are unspecified.
- Team section lacks individual names and roles.
  > 💡 Align strictly to IM_1.pdf and include concrete metrics and named team profiles.

### ✅ `bb499d9c…` — score 7/10
- Text response does not evidence all required sections were fully addressed in the Word document.
- No confirmation of specific regulatory compliance frameworks included in the sales process.
- Industry research sources or best-practice references are not cited or summarized.
  > 💡 Add a concise executive summary confirming compliance coverage, research sources, and section completeness.

### ✅ `5349dd7b…` — score 7/10
- No source citations provided for historical rate increases or current flat-rate prices.
- FedEx and UPS flat-rate box offerings may not reflect actual published flat-rate programs.
- Business rate assumptions are stated but not evidenced or validated.
  > 💡 Add cited sources and validate carrier flat-rate offerings against official 2025 pricing pages.

### ✅ `a4a9195c…` — score 8/10
- IPC-A-610G reference is high-level without section-specific alignment.
- Revision control and document approval details are not defined.
- Environmental control limits are stated without measurable parameters.
  > 💡 Add revision history, measurable environmental limits, and explicit IPC-A-610G section references.

### ✅ `552b7dd0…` — score 7/10
- Text response lacks specific numeric results for incidents, costs, and durations.
- Summary slide content is described but not explicitly validated against data.
- No explicit confirmation that all suppliers were included in visuals.
  > 💡 Include key quantitative findings in the text summary to reinforce the delivered files.

### ❌ `11dcc268…` — score 4/10
- Moved To locations are UNASSIGNED instead of assigned line locations from Inv on line.
- Location Report headers and structure do not match the blank template.
- No evidence of cross-referencing Inv on line data for location assignment.
  > 💡 Populate correct line locations from Inv on line and align the report strictly to the template.

### ✅ `76418a2c…` — score 5/10
- Manifest lacks pick ticket numbers and customer names.
- Spreadsheet headers and layout do not match the blank manifest.
- Savings values show unrounded floating-point artifacts.
  > 💡 Populate all required fields using the blank manifest structure and format values cleanly.

### ❌ `0e386e32…` — score 4/10
- ZIP file size suggests minimal or empty content.
- Deliverable relies heavily on placeholders rather than functional implementations.
- Missing explicit zkSNARK circuits and concrete Aave/Connext integrations.
  > 💡 Provide a fully populated scaffold with concrete code files and minimal working integrations.

### ❌ `4122f866…` — score 3/10
- Terraform configuration files are not visible or verifiable in the deliverable.
- Lambda function source code is not shown or reviewable.
- SES, API Gateway, and IAM implementations cannot be validated.
  > 💡 Include all Terraform files and Lambda source code in plain text for direct inspection.

### ❌ `2c249e0f…` — score 3/10
- Required OpenAPI 3.0 YAML specification file was not produced.
- Output describes deliverables but does not include the API spec content.
- Task requested two files but only data_flow.txt exists.
  > 💡 Provide the complete OpenAPI 3.0 YAML file alongside the existing data_flow.txt.

## Failure Analysis

The clearest hard-failure pattern is brittle structured-data execution. All 9 error tasks were retried, yet every one still failed, and most trace back to hard-coded spreadsheet assumptions or code-generation defects rather than domain reasoning. Examples include missing-column KeyErrors in 5f6c57dd-feb6-4e70-b152-4969d92d1608 using Branch, b39a5aa7-cd1b-47ad-b249-90afd22f8f21 using Employee #, 327fbc21-7d26-4964-bf7c-f4f41e55c54d using ACTIVE STATUS, a0552909-bc66-4a3a-8970-ee0d17b49718 using Request Sent Date, and 6a900a40-8d2b-4064-a5b1-13a60bc173d8 using Quantity Range. Manufacturing also showed dataframe mutation fragility in 1752cb53-5983-46b6-92ee-58ac85a11283 and column-selection failure in 9e39df84-ac57-4c9b-a2e3-12b8abf2c797. The two Software Developer errors, 7de33b48-5163-4f50-b5f3-8deea8185e57 and 854f3814-681c-4950-91ac-55b0db0e3781, were pure syntax/serialization failures, suggesting packaging reliability is a separate failure mode from spreadsheet schema mismatch. These error clusters are concentrated in Finance and Insurance, Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, and Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services rather than in the higher-performing Government or Retail sectors.

The biggest quality weakness, however, is not hard failure but apparent completion with missing substance. Information achieved full task completion yet had the weakest sector QA and the highest latency, largely because many creative/media tasks produced plans, briefs, or documentation instead of the required audio/video assets. Examples include ff85ee58-bc9f-4aa2-806d-87edeabb1b81 and 4b894ae3-1f23-4560-b13d-07ed1132074e, where no final WAV output was produced; e222075d-5d62-4757-ae3c-e34b0846583b, c94452e4-39cd-4846-b73a-ab75933d1ad7, 75401f7c-396d-406d-b08e-938874ad1045, and a941b6d8-4289-4500-b45a-f8e4fc94a724, where no finished MP4/video artifact existed despite successful status. The same substitute-a-plan-for-the-deliverable pattern appears in e4f664ea-0e5c-4e4e-a0d3-a87a33da947a, where a screenplay task yielded intent language rather than screenplay text, and in 38889c3b-e3d4-49c8-816a-3cc8e5313aba, which consumed 356,885 ms yet still lacked verifiable audio-spec compliance. This points to a task-complexity boundary: when the task requires binary media editing or composition, the system often falls back to surrogate documents.

A second broad quality pattern is under-populated or placeholder-heavy analytical output, especially in spreadsheet and research tasks. Several tasks technically succeeded but failed on the core computation or data-population objective: 7b08cd4d-df60-41ae-9102-8aaa49306ba2 produced a P&L with zero revenue; 8079e27d-b6f3-4f75-a9b5-db27903c798d delivered an empty S&P 500 framework; 02aa1805-c658-4069-8a6a-02dec146063a contained placeholder IEPA well rows; a99d85fc-eff8-48d2-a7d4-42a75d62f18d omitted the monthly rent matrix and formulas; f2986c1f-2bbf-4b83-bc93-624a9d617f45 used NA placeholders instead of medication identification; and 90edba97-74f0-425a-8ff6-8b93182eb7cb failed to enter monthly dialysis data. This pattern shows up in lower-QA occupations like Accountants and Auditors, Financial and Investment Analysts, Project Management Specialists, and some Real Estate roles that required external public data validation. By contrast, many of the highest-scoring tasks were constrained text or form outputs with limited external dependency, such as 7bbfcfe9-132d-4194-82bb-d6f29d001b01, 2696757c-1f8a-4959-8f0d-f5597b9e70fc, 36d567ba-e205-4313-9756-931c6e4691fe, 476db143-163a-4537-9e21-fe46adad703b, and 403b9234-6299-4b5f-a106-70c1bc11ec4c.

Retries helped status recovery more than output quality. A large share of retried tasks still landed at middling or low QA, such as 4b894ae3-1f23-4560-b13d-07ed1132074e at 3, e996036e-8287-4e7f-8d0a-90a57cb53c45 at 4, 61e7b9c6-0051-429f-a341-fda9b6578a84 at 3, 105f8ad0-8dd2-422f-9e88-2be5fbd2b215 at 4, and d7cfae6f-4a82-4289-955e-c799dfe1e0f4 at 4. That suggests retries often reran the same strategy instead of changing tactics after an initial failure or weak draft. Latency also did not buy quality: the Information sector had the highest average latency but one of the lowest QA averages, and long-running tasks such as 38889c3b-e3d4-49c8-816a-3cc8e5313aba, 6974adea-8326-43fa-8187-2724b15d9546, and 8314d1b1-5b0f-42a4-b5d5-91c0867b0913 still scored only 4 to 5, while much faster compliance/policy tasks in Government often scored 9. Overall, complexity correlates less with outright task failure than with a downgrade from real completion to formal-looking but semantically incomplete deliverables.

## Recommendations

First, add a schema-first execution path for spreadsheet and code tasks. Before any pandas access, the runtime should inspect workbook sheet names, normalize headers, de-duplicate columns, and fuzzy-match expected labels to observed ones. That directly targets the dominant error traces in 5f6c57dd-feb6-4e70-b152-4969d92d1608, b39a5aa7-cd1b-47ad-b249-90afd22f8f21, 327fbc21-7d26-4964-bf7c-f4f41e55c54d, a0552909-bc66-4a3a-8970-ee0d17b49718, and 6a900a40-8d2b-4064-a5b1-13a60bc173d8. The executor should also cast target columns explicitly before assignment to prevent dtype crashes like 1752cb53-5983-46b6-92ee-58ac85a11283. For code/archive deliverables, compile or parse generated source before packaging; a simple syntax gate would have caught 7de33b48-5163-4f50-b5f3-8deea8185e57 and 854f3814-681c-4950-91ac-55b0db0e3781.

Second, tighten prompting around artifact fidelity: require the model to produce the requested deliverable, not a plan for producing it. The prompt should explicitly forbid substituting summaries, implementation narratives, or unrequested Python/code claims for the required output. This would address recurring low-QA patterns in 76d10872-9ffa-4ede-83ee-e0f1ec5e2b8d, 87da214f-fd92-4c58-9854-f4d0d10adce0, 6974adea-8326-43fa-8187-2724b15d9546, and e4f664ea-0e5c-4e4e-a0d3-a87a33da947a. For media tasks specifically, require a manifest that proves the binary asset exists and matches specs: filename, duration, codec/container, sample rate, resolution, and a brief content checksum or frame/audio summary. That would have exposed the false-positive completions 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.

Third, raise automated QA gates for empty, placeholder, or unverifiable outputs. A task should not pass if key tables are blank, all-zero, NA-filled, or inconsistent with the required geography/entity set. That would have intercepted 7b08cd4d-df60-41ae-9102-8aaa49306ba2, 8079e27d-b6f3-4f75-a9b5-db27903c798d, 02aa1805-c658-4069-8a6a-02dec146063a, a99d85fc-eff8-48d2-a7d4-42a75d62f18d, f2986c1f-2bbf-4b83-bc93-624a9d617f45, and 90edba97-74f0-425a-8ff6-8b93182eb7cb despite their nominal success status. Add task-type validators: minimum populated row counts for analytical spreadsheets, formula-presence checks for financial/rent models, citation-count thresholds for public-data research, and location/entity consistency checks for real-estate and market-scanning tasks like 11593a50-734d-4449-b5b4-f8986a133fd8 and 0818571f-5ff7-4d39-9d2c-ced5ae44299e.

Fourth, make retries adaptive instead of repetitive. The second attempt should ingest the first attempt’s exception or QA findings and switch tactics: inspect headers after a KeyError, simplify output assembly after syntax failure, or force direct content generation when the first attempt produced only meta-description. Current retries often improved task status but not quality, as seen in 4b894ae3-1f23-4560-b13d-07ed1132074e, e996036e-8287-4e7f-8d0a-90a57cb53c45, 61e7b9c6-0051-429f-a341-fda9b6578a84, 105f8ad0-8dd2-422f-9e88-2be5fbd2b215, and d7cfae6f-4a82-4289-955e-c799dfe1e0f4. At the routing level, consider stricter gating or specialized toolchains for the weakest task families: multimedia production in Information, schema-heavy Excel tasks in Finance/Manufacturing/Wholesale, and code-archive packaging in Software Developers. That is where completion metrics are currently overstating actual deliverable fidelity.

## Deliverable Files

- `83d10b06…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `7b08cd4d…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `7d7fc9a7…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 7 file(s)
- `43dc9778…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 16 file(s)
- `ee09d943…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 18 file(s)
- `f84ea6ac…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a328feea…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `27e8912c…` (Government): 5 file(s)
- `17111c03…` (Government): 3 file(s)
- `c44e9b62…` (Government): 6 file(s)
- `99ac6944…` (Information): 4 file(s)
- `f9a1c16c…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `38889c3b…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `ff85ee58…` (Information): 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): 3 file(s)
- `bbe0a93b…` (Government): 3 file(s)
- `85d95ce5…` (Government): 4 file(s)
- `76d10872…` (Government): 5 file(s)
- `36d567ba…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `7bbfcfe9…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `2696757c…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `dfb4e0cd…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `4c18ebae…` (Government): 3 file(s)
- `cebf301e…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `c2e8f271…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `2ea2e5b5…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `c357f0e2…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `a45bc83b…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 5 file(s)
- `a10ec48c…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `fccaa4a1…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `f5d428fd…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 8 file(s)
- `2fa8e956…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `0e4fe8cd…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `a0ef404e…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `b7a5912e…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `aa071045…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `476db143…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 4 file(s)
- `61f546a8…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 4 file(s)
- `f3351922…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `61717508…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `0ed38524…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `87da214f…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `d025a41c…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `401a07f1…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `afe56d05…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `9a8c8e28…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `3a4c347c…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `ec2fccc9…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `8c8fc328…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `e222075d…` (Information): 6 file(s)
- `c94452e4…` (Information): 11 file(s)
- `75401f7c…` (Information): 4 file(s)
- `a941b6d8…` (Information): 4 file(s)
- `8079e27d…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `e21cd746…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `9e8607e7…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `c7d83f01…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `46b34f78…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `a1963a68…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `b78fd844…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `4520f882…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `ec591973…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `62f04c2f…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `3f821c2d…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `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): 1 file(s)
- `eb54f575…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `11e1b169…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a95a5829…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `22c0809b…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `bf68f2ad…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `efca245f…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `68d8d901…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `bd72994f…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `211d0093…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `d4525420…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `45c6237b…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `cecac8f9…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `8f9e8bcd…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `0fad6023…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `02314fc6…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `4d61a19a…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `6436ff9e…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `8a7b6fca…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `40a99a31…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `b9665ca1…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `c6269101…` (Manufacturing): 5 file(s)
- `be830ca0…` (Manufacturing): 8 file(s)
- `cd9efc18…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `a97369c7…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `3f625cb2…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `aad21e4c…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `8314d1b1…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `5e2b6aab…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `46fc494e…` (Manufacturing): 6 file(s)
- `3940b7e7…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `8077e700…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `5a2d70da…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `74d6e8b0…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `81db15ff…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `61b0946a…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `61e7b9c6…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `c9bf9801…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 4 file(s)
- `f1be6436…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 5 file(s)
- `41f6ef59…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `6d2c8e55…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 13 file(s)
- `4b98ccce…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 7 file(s)
- `60221cd0…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `ef8719da…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `3baa0009…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `5d0feb24…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `6974adea…` (Information): 8 file(s)
- `1a78e076…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `1b9ec237…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `0112fc9b…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `772e7524…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `e6429658…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 4 file(s)
- `b5d2e6f1…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `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): 1 file(s)
- `3600de06…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `c657103b…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `ae0c1093…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `f9f82549…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `57b2cdf2…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `84322284…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `a46d5cd2…` (Retail Trade): 5 file(s)
- `6241e678…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `e14e32ba…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `b1a79ce1…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `e4f664ea…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `a079d38f…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `02aa1805…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `fd6129bd…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 3 file(s)
- `ce864f41…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 5 file(s)
- `58ac1cc5…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 7 file(s)
- `3c19c6d1…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 5 file(s)
- `a99d85fc…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `55ddb773…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `1e5a1d7f…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `0419f1c3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `ed2bc14c…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `46bc7238…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 8 file(s)
- `2d06bc0a…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `fd3ad420…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `0818571f…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 17 file(s)
- `6074bba3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 4 file(s)
- `5ad0c554…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `11593a50…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `94925f49…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 5 file(s)
- `90f37ff3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `d3d255b2…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `403b9234…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `1bff4551…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `650adcb1…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `01d7e53e…` (Government): 4 file(s)
- `a73fbc98…` (Government): 5 file(s)
- `0ec25916…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `116e791e…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `dd724c67…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `7151c60a…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 5 file(s)
- `90edba97…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 7 file(s)
- `91060ff0…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `8384083a…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `045aba2e…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `f2986c1f…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `ffed32d8…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `b3573f20…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `a69be28f…` (Wholesale Trade): 20 file(s)
- `788d2bc6…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `74ed1dc7…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `69a8ef86…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `ab81b076…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `d7cfae6f…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `19403010…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `7ed932dd…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `105f8ad0…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `b57efde3…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `15d37511…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `bb863dd9…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `fe0d3941…` (Wholesale Trade): 4 file(s)
- `9efbcd35…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `1d4672c8…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `4de6a529…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `4c4dc603…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `bb499d9c…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `5349dd7b…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `a4a9195c…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `552b7dd0…` (Manufacturing): 5 file(s)
- `11dcc268…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `76418a2c…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `0e386e32…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `4122f866…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `2c249e0f…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
