# Experiment Report: GPT-5.4-Mini Reasoning HIGH — Full Benchmark (Ablation 1/4)

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| **Experiment ID** | `exp021_GPT54Mini_reasoning_high` |
| **Condition** | GPT-5.4-Mini reasoning=high + gpt-audio-1.5 preprocessor |
| **Model** | gpt-5.4-mini |
| **Execution Mode** | subprocess |
| **Date** | 2026-03-24 |
| **Duration** | 92m 26s |
| **Generated At** | 2026-03-24T18:39:08.660538+00:00 |
| 🤗 HF Dataset | [exp021_GPT54Mini_reasoning_high](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp021_GPT54Mini_reasoning_high) |
| 📊 Self-Report | [self_report.json](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp021_GPT54Mini_reasoning_high/blob/main/self_report.json) |
| 📊 Grading | ⏳ Awaiting (`scores.json`) |

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

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

This run evaluated gpt-5.4-mini in reasoning=high mode with the gpt-audio-1.5 preprocessor, executed via subprocess. Across 220 benchmark tasks, the model completed 207 successfully for a 94.1% task completion rate, with 13 errors and 53 retried tasks. Average end-to-end latency was 17.3s.

From an LLM-evaluated quality perspective, the average self-assessed confidence score was 6.65/10, with observed outputs ranging from 2/10 to 10/10. That profile indicates generally usable deliverables, but with noticeable variability in answer quality and confidence across tasks rather than consistently high-confidence generations.

Sector coverage was strong overall: Finance and Insurance achieved 25/25 successful completions, while most other sectors landed at 24/25 or 23/25. The main completion weakness was Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services at 21/25, with Retail Trade also lower at 18/20. This suggests the run was operationally reliable, but not uniformly robust across all task families.

Deliverable file generation quality appears broadly solid but not frictionless. The high completion count implies that files/artifacts were usually produced successfully, yet the retry count is material and the 13 terminal failures show that generation stability still required recovery behavior. In practical terms, the system looks dependable for large-batch execution, with moderate variance in the final LLM-evaluated quality of produced deliverables.

## Key Metrics

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Tasks | 220 |
| Success | 207 (94.1%) |
| Errors | 13 |
| Retried Tasks | 53 |
| Avg QA Score | 6.65/10 |
| Min QA Score | 2/10 |
| Max QA Score | 10/10 |
| Avg Latency | 17,341ms |
| Max Latency | 132,952ms |
| Total LLM Time | 3814s |

## File Generation

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Tasks requiring files | 185 |
| Successfully generated | 174 (94.1%) |
| Failed → dummy created | 11 |

### Resume Rounds

| Round | Attempted | Recovered | Still Failed |
|-------|-----------|-----------|--------------|
| 1 | 29 | 29 | 0 |
| 2 | 24 | 11 | 13 |

## Quality Analysis

The self-assessed confidence distribution shows a mid-to-good central tendency with meaningful spread. An average of 6.65/10, paired with a minimum of 2 and maximum of 10, indicates that while many outputs were likely acceptable or strong, a non-trivial subset of tasks produced lower-confidence results. This is consistent with a model that usually completes work productively but still exhibits uneven certainty and answer polish.

At the sector level, Retail Trade had the strongest LLM-evaluated quality at 7.7/10 despite only 18/20 completions, suggesting that when retail tasks succeeded, the resulting deliverables were comparatively confident. Government and Wholesale Trade were also strong at 7.0/10, while Finance and Insurance posted perfect completion with 6.8/10 average quality. By contrast, Manufacturing (6.1/10), Health Care and Social Assistance (6.2/10), and Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (6.2/10) trailed on self-assessed confidence, implying more cautious or less polished responses in those domains.

No separate occupation-level breakdown was provided in the run summary, so interpretation is limited to sector-level task families rather than specific occupations. Within that constraint, the weakest operational segment was Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, which combined the lowest completion count with below-average self-assessed confidence. Health Care and Manufacturing also appear to be areas where successful completion did not necessarily translate into stronger LLM-evaluated quality.

Latency does not show a simple positive relationship with quality in this run. Finance and Information were among the slowest sectors at 21.7s and 21.1s respectively, but neither produced the highest self-assessed confidence. Retail was one of the fastest sectors at 13.5s and also the highest on quality, while Government achieved strong quality at a moderate 14.9s. Overall, the pattern suggests that longer runtimes were not reliably buying better deliverable quality, and that sector/task characteristics were more predictive than latency alone.

## Sector Breakdown

| Sector | Tasks | Success | Success% | Avg QA | Avg Latency |
|--------|-------|---------|----------|--------|-------------|
| Finance and Insurance | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 6.76/10 | 21,728ms |
| Government | 25 | 23 | 92.0% | 7.0/10 | 14,947ms |
| Health Care and Social Assistance | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 6.21/10 | 14,679ms |
| Information | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 6.46/10 | 21,064ms |
| Manufacturing | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 6.12/10 | 15,648ms |
| Professional, Scientific, and Technical  | 25 | 21 | 84.0% | 6.19/10 | 17,838ms |
| Real Estate and Rental and Leasing | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 6.67/10 | 19,555ms |
| Retail Trade | 20 | 18 | 90.0% | 7.67/10 | 13,518ms |
| Wholesale Trade | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 7.0/10 | 16,326ms |

## Task Results

| # | Task ID | Sector | Occupation | Status | Retry | Files | QA Score | Latency |
|---|---------|--------|------------|--------|-------|-------|----------|---------|
| 1 | `83d10b06…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 14387ms |
| 2 | `7b08cd4d…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 25908ms |
| 3 | `7d7fc9a7…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 22948ms |
| 4 | `43dc9778…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 19460ms |
| 5 | `ee09d943…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 14970ms |
| 6 | `f84ea6ac…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 11319ms |
| 7 | `a328feea…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 11049ms |
| 8 | `27e8912c…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 17469ms |
| 9 | `17111c03…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 12273ms |
| 10 | `c44e9b62…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 4 | 4/10 | 19392ms |
| 11 | `99ac6944…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 5 | 8/10 | 30569ms |
| 12 | `f9a1c16c…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 15553ms |
| 13 | `38889c3b…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | Yes | 6 | 6/10 | 34349ms |
| 14 | `ff85ee58…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 9/10 | 43948ms |
| 15 | `4b894ae3…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 18334ms |
| 16 | `1b1ade2d…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 13613ms |
| 17 | `93b336f3…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 13000ms |
| 18 | `15ddd28d…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 8696ms |
| 19 | `24d1e93f…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 14296ms |
| 20 | `05389f78…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 14944ms |
| 21 | `575f8679…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 15812ms |
| 22 | `a74ead3b…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 4 | 8/10 | 15419ms |
| 23 | `bbe0a93b…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 18426ms |
| 24 | `85d95ce5…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 28837ms |
| 25 | `76d10872…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 19022ms |
| 26 | `36d567ba…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 13918ms |
| 27 | `7bbfcfe9…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 9253ms |
| 28 | `2696757c…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 8508ms |
| 29 | `dfb4e0cd…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 8363ms |
| 30 | `4c18ebae…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 22991ms |
| 31 | `cebf301e…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 19354ms |
| 32 | `c2e8f271…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 14011ms |
| 33 | `2ea2e5b5…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 14459ms |
| 34 | `c357f0e2…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 9/10 | 20836ms |
| 35 | `a45bc83b…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 5 | 8/10 | 18312ms |
| 36 | `a10ec48c…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 132952ms |
| 37 | `fccaa4a1…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 16364ms |
| 38 | `f5d428fd…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 16837ms |
| 39 | `2fa8e956…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 2 | 2/10 | 14840ms |
| 40 | `0e4fe8cd…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 16409ms |
| 41 | `a0ef404e…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 11368ms |
| 42 | `b7a5912e…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 17410ms |
| 43 | `aa071045…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 13744ms |
| 44 | `476db143…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 9/10 | 12967ms |
| 45 | `61f546a8…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 20260ms |
| 46 | `f3351922…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 8843ms |
| 47 | `61717508…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 18463ms |
| 48 | `0ed38524…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 13532ms |
| 49 | `87da214f…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 3/10 | 16209ms |
| 50 | `d025a41c…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 13187ms |
| 51 | `401a07f1…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 10450ms |
| 52 | `afe56d05…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 17813ms |
| 53 | `9a8c8e28…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 7 | 7/10 | 22037ms |
| 54 | `3a4c347c…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 14544ms |
| 55 | `ec2fccc9…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 13078ms |
| 56 | `8c8fc328…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 9514ms |
| 57 | `e222075d…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 11177ms |
| 58 | `c94452e4…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 3/10 | 6882ms |
| 59 | `75401f7c…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 4/10 | 120876ms |
| 60 | `a941b6d8…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 20833ms |
| 61 | `8079e27d…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 22450ms |
| 62 | `e21cd746…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 27663ms |
| 63 | `9e8607e7…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 5 | 8/10 | 31697ms |
| 64 | `c7d83f01…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 27679ms |
| 65 | `46b34f78…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 8/10 | 14112ms |
| 66 | `a1963a68…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 29082ms |
| 67 | `5f6c57dd…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 39413ms |
| 68 | `b39a5aa7…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 22718ms |
| 69 | `b78fd844…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 15516ms |
| 70 | `4520f882…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 8/10 | 24515ms |
| 71 | `ec591973…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 11872ms |
| 72 | `62f04c2f…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 10/10 | 11045ms |
| 73 | `3f821c2d…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 14931ms |
| 74 | `e996036e…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 17714ms |
| 75 | `327fbc21…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 3/10 | 17829ms |
| 76 | `6dcae3f5…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 15194ms |
| 77 | `1aecc095…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 14874ms |
| 78 | `0353ee0c…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 6/10 | 17531ms |
| 79 | `40a8c4b1…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 20968ms |
| 80 | `4d1a8410…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 18597ms |
| 81 | `8c823e32…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 16070ms |
| 82 | `eb54f575…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 17807ms |
| 83 | `11e1b169…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 15286ms |
| 84 | `a95a5829…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 15291ms |
| 85 | `22c0809b…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 13060ms |
| 86 | `bf68f2ad…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 9/10 | 10121ms |
| 87 | `efca245f…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 13333ms |
| 88 | `9e39df84…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 16204ms |
| 89 | `68d8d901…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 10605ms |
| 90 | `1752cb53…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 8398ms |
| 91 | `bd72994f…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 9/10 | 12440ms |
| 92 | `211d0093…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 8531ms |
| 93 | `d4525420…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 14921ms |
| 94 | `45c6237b…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 20624ms |
| 95 | `cecac8f9…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 18566ms |
| 96 | `8f9e8bcd…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 10721ms |
| 97 | `0fad6023…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 11184ms |
| 98 | `02314fc6…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 11482ms |
| 99 | `4d61a19a…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 24770ms |
| 100 | `6436ff9e…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 10703ms |
| 101 | `8a7b6fca…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 26956ms |
| 102 | `40a99a31…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 8/10 | 22493ms |
| 103 | `b9665ca1…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 16791ms |
| 104 | `c6269101…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 17018ms |
| 105 | `be830ca0…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 7 | 6/10 | 29846ms |
| 106 | `cd9efc18…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 22437ms |
| 107 | `a97369c7…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 32866ms |
| 108 | `3f625cb2…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 16286ms |
| 109 | `aad21e4c…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 27763ms |
| 110 | `8314d1b1…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 21374ms |
| 111 | `5e2b6aab…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 21 | 4/10 | 16452ms |
| 112 | `46fc494e…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | Yes | 9 | 4/10 | 37931ms |
| 113 | `3940b7e7…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 16268ms |
| 114 | `8077e700…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 17950ms |
| 115 | `5a2d70da…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 16269ms |
| 116 | `74d6e8b0…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 20503ms |
| 117 | `81db15ff…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 7389ms |
| 118 | `61b0946a…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 14111ms |
| 119 | `61e7b9c6…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 8480ms |
| 120 | `c9bf9801…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 28144ms |
| 121 | `f1be6436…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 13435ms |
| 122 | `41f6ef59…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 11817ms |
| 123 | `a0552909…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 13740ms |
| 124 | `6d2c8e55…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 11 | 4/10 | 16015ms |
| 125 | `4b98ccce…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 15509ms |
| 126 | `60221cd0…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 4925ms |
| 127 | `ef8719da…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 9639ms |
| 128 | `3baa0009…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 10441ms |
| 129 | `5d0feb24…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 10899ms |
| 130 | `6974adea…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 13802ms |
| 131 | `1a78e076…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 16568ms |
| 132 | `1b9ec237…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 27985ms |
| 133 | `0112fc9b…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 7304ms |
| 134 | `772e7524…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 6872ms |
| 135 | `e6429658…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 6/10 | 10042ms |
| 136 | `b5d2e6f1…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 13995ms |
| 137 | `f841ddcf…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 9/10 | 21313ms |
| 138 | `47ef842d…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 14265ms |
| 139 | `1137e2bb…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 14287ms |
| 140 | `c3525d4d…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 16216ms |
| 141 | `9a0d8d36…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 26317ms |
| 142 | `664a42e5…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 31130ms |
| 143 | `feb5eefc…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 16135ms |
| 144 | `3600de06…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 4 | 8/10 | 30080ms |
| 145 | `c657103b…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 8/10 | 29463ms |
| 146 | `ae0c1093…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 4 | 9/10 | 9904ms |
| 147 | `f9f82549…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 6/10 | 14138ms |
| 148 | `57b2cdf2…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 9/10 | 9735ms |
| 149 | `84322284…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 13431ms |
| 150 | `a46d5cd2…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 9/10 | 11387ms |
| 151 | `6241e678…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 19649ms |
| 152 | `e14e32ba…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 13002ms |
| 153 | `b1a79ce1…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 25323ms |
| 154 | `e4f664ea…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 16279ms |
| 155 | `a079d38f…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 12675ms |
| 156 | `02aa1805…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 2 | 2/10 | 13814ms |
| 157 | `fd6129bd…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 21234ms |
| 158 | `ce864f41…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 12612ms |
| 159 | `58ac1cc5…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 16120ms |
| 160 | `3c19c6d1…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 16787ms |
| 161 | `a99d85fc…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 14720ms |
| 162 | `55ddb773…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 13973ms |
| 163 | `1e5a1d7f…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 10379ms |
| 164 | `0419f1c3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 15678ms |
| 165 | `ed2bc14c…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 11828ms |
| 166 | `46bc7238…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 19891ms |
| 167 | `2d06bc0a…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 10203ms |
| 168 | `fd3ad420…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 9460ms |
| 169 | `0818571f…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 3 | 3/10 | 12008ms |
| 170 | `6074bba3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 8/10 | 17758ms |
| 171 | `5ad0c554…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 4 | 8/10 | 18316ms |
| 172 | `11593a50…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 3 | 4/10 | 16775ms |
| 173 | `94925f49…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | Yes | 8 | 4/10 | 16694ms |
| 174 | `90f37ff3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 16458ms |
| 175 | `d3d255b2…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 11584ms |
| 176 | `403b9234…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 8577ms |
| 177 | `1bff4551…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 11304ms |
| 178 | `650adcb1…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 13312ms |
| 179 | `01d7e53e…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 16522ms |
| 180 | `a73fbc98…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 8/10 | 14402ms |
| 181 | `0ec25916…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 12709ms |
| 182 | `116e791e…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 12571ms |
| 183 | `dd724c67…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 15435ms |
| 184 | `7151c60a…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 13073ms |
| 185 | `90edba97…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 8102ms |
| 186 | `91060ff0…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 4 | 9/10 | 22307ms |
| 187 | `8384083a…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 10839ms |
| 188 | `045aba2e…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 14200ms |
| 189 | `f2986c1f…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 5522ms |
| 190 | `ffed32d8…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 14950ms |
| 191 | `b3573f20…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 9725ms |
| 192 | `a69be28f…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 13 | 9/10 | 25656ms |
| 193 | `788d2bc6…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 9 | 9/10 | 38138ms |
| 194 | `74ed1dc7…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 15284ms |
| 195 | `69a8ef86…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 14507ms |
| 196 | `ab81b076…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 12822ms |
| 197 | `d7cfae6f…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 4/10 | 16533ms |
| 198 | `19403010…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 13338ms |
| 199 | `7ed932dd…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 12273ms |
| 200 | `105f8ad0…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 13276ms |
| 201 | `b57efde3…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 2/10 | 23472ms |
| 202 | `15d37511…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 14455ms |
| 203 | `bb863dd9…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 12372ms |
| 204 | `fe0d3941…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 17938ms |
| 205 | `6a900a40…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 14890ms |
| 206 | `9efbcd35…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 10253ms |
| 207 | `1d4672c8…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 24372ms |
| 208 | `4de6a529…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 4/10 | 12865ms |
| 209 | `4c4dc603…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 9/10 | 13563ms |
| 210 | `bb499d9c…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 23953ms |
| 211 | `5349dd7b…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 10548ms |
| 212 | `a4a9195c…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 9647ms |
| 213 | `552b7dd0…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 3 | 8/10 | 13333ms |
| 214 | `11dcc268…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 7022ms |
| 215 | `76418a2c…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 9458ms |
| 216 | `0e386e32…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 16970ms |
| 217 | `7de33b48…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 7028ms |
| 218 | `854f3814…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 1599ms |
| 219 | `4122f866…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 17121ms |
| 220 | `2c249e0f…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 17287ms |

## QA Issues

### ✅ `7d7fc9a7…` — score 6/10
- Summary ending balances do not match the provided GL balances.
- Prepaid Insurance schedule appears to have incorrect ending balance reconciliation.
- Text response is generic and does not confirm completed workbook details.
  > 💡 Verify all reconciliations and provide a concise completion summary.

### ✅ `43dc9778…` — score 6/10
- No actual Form 1040 or required schedules are shown in the package.
- Text says 'likely' attachments, not confirmed completed e-file forms.
- Workpaper summary is included, but not requested as a deliverable.
  > 💡 Provide the completed 1040 PDF with all required schedules and forms.

### ✅ `ee09d943…` — score 6/10
- No evidence the workbook was actually updated with April source data.
- Text response claims validation without showing completed schedules or TOC changes.
- Potentially missing required April tabs or documented exceptions.
  > 💡 Verify all April tabs, updates, and TOC entries are completed and reflected in the workbook.

### ❌ `f84ea6ac…` — score 4/10
- Output lacks the required five study details in the visible content.
- Text response is generic and does not summarize findings or implications.
- File preview suggests incomplete or truncated table content.
  > 💡 Provide a complete one-page table with five fully summarized post-2020 open-access studies.

### ✅ `27e8912c…` — score 6/10
- Checklist is only one page, not a full five-page PDF.
- Word document lacks a visible action-item tracking table.
- Checklist text shows formatting errors in keyboard and mouse section.
  > 💡 Revise the PDF layout, add the required tracking table, and fix text formatting errors.

### ❌ `c44e9b62…` — score 4/10
- Reduction totals appear below the required 4% target.
- Briefing note preview is truncated and may omit required alignment details.
- FTE report shows generic 'Supervisor' rows, reducing clarity by position title.
  > 💡 Revise the package to clearly exceed 4% and ensure all deliverables specify exact position-level reductions.

### ✅ `99ac6944…` — score 8/10
- PDF is only three pages, but the task requested a full one-stop document.
- The mixer choice may not fully satisfy independent vocal mix and onboard compression requirements.
- The cost breakdown image and spreadsheet details are present, but retailer links are not clearly verified.
  > 💡 Add explicit retailer links and confirm the mixer supports the required processing and routing.

### ✅ `38889c3b…` — score 6/10
- No evidence the files are exactly 2:17 long.
- Bridge stem naming is ambiguous and may not match required stem set.
- Text mentions an unrelated ADSR error correction.
  > 💡 Verify duration, stem contents, and remove irrelevant commentary.

### ✅ `4b894ae3…` — score 6/10
- Deliverable name uses spaces instead of the requested underscore format.
- A DOCX summary was added, which was not requested.
- No evidence confirms the bass edits match all reference spots.
  > 💡 Rename the WAV to the exact required filename and verify all edit spots were applied.

### ✅ `1b1ade2d…` — score 6/10
- Missing the requested Python script file.
- Workflow draft is high-level and lacks detailed approval trail requirements.
- Text response promises a script not actually produced.
  > 💡 Add the script and expand the workflow with explicit traceability and signoff steps.

### ✅ `93b336f3…` — score 8/10
- Cost section is truncated in the preview, limiting verification of calculations.
- No obvious file type or content errors were detected.
- The document appears professional and aligned to the procurement brief.
  > 💡 Verify the full cost table and assumptions are clearly shown in the final document.

### ✅ `15ddd28d…` — score 8/10
- Preview is truncated, so completeness cannot be fully verified.
- No explicit evidence of final negotiation ask or decision criteria.
- File content appears professional and aligned, but exact page length is unconfirmed.
  > 💡 Verify the full document includes a clear ask, decision criteria, and 2–3 page length.

### ✅ `05389f78…` — score 6/10
- Report preview is truncated, so completeness cannot be verified.
- No evidence the email includes all required recipients and termination language.
- No attached quote file analysis is visible for exact calculations.
  > 💡 Verify full document content, recipient details, and quotation-based calculations before submission.

### ✅ `a74ead3b…` — score 8/10
- Text response mentions validation step not requested.
- Cannot verify slide content closely matches manual from preview.
- No obvious missing required file types.
  > 💡 Review slide content against the manual for tighter alignment.

### ✅ `bbe0a93b…` — score 6/10
- Spanish PDF preview is truncated, so completeness cannot be verified.
- Resource guide omits some requested categories like education and financial literacy.
- Assessment form lacks visible bilingual content in the English PDF.
  > 💡 Provide fully verified bilingual assessment PDFs and expand the resource guide to cover all requested categories.

### ✅ `36d567ba…` — score 7/10
- PDF preview is truncated, so full compliance cannot be verified.
- No evidence the Word document is 1-2 pages exactly.
- Text response mentions a PDF, which was not requested.
  > 💡 Provide the complete 1-2 page Word tool and ensure all required topics and citations are fully visible.

### ✅ `4c18ebae…` — score 6/10
- Output omits the required narrative SAR details and subject analysis.
- Excel content appears generic and may not fully reflect the case facts.
- Text response promises files but does not summarize key findings professionally.
  > 💡 Include a concise SAR narrative with subjects, typologies, and transaction examples.

### ✅ `c2e8f271…` — score 8/10
- PDF preview is truncated, so full content cannot be fully verified.
- No explicit evidence of the 6-page limit being enforced beyond the preview.
- Text response mentions validation, but file content validation details are not shown.
  > 💡 Provide the full document preview or page count confirmation for complete verification.

### ✅ `2ea2e5b5…` — score 6/10
- Missing evidence that the source workbook was actually used.
- Original task text is truncated in the strategic level section.
- No verification of slide content or table accuracy is provided.
  > 💡 Confirm workbook-driven mappings and validate the PPTX contents against all required categories.

### ✅ `a45bc83b…` — score 8/10
- Text response is brief and not fully professional.
- POC document may not explicitly mirror all requested source details.
- Diagram content cannot be fully verified from preview.
  > 💡 Review the documents for completeness, style alignment, and explicit requirement coverage.

### ✅ `a10ec48c…` — score 6/10
- No actual restaurant tables are visible in the preview.
- Restaurant details and links cannot be verified from the provided content.
- Text response is professional but only describes the document, not its contents.
  > 💡 Verify the document contains complete tables with sourced restaurant data and clickable links.

### ✅ `fccaa4a1…` — score 8/10
- PDF text preview is slightly truncated at the end.
- Tour operator details are brief and not deeply sourced.
- No explicit confirmation of royalty-free image source is shown.
  > 💡 Verify the final PDF includes complete sourced details and image attribution.

### ✅ `f5d428fd…` — score 6/10
- PDF is five pages, not the requested two pages.
- The itinerary appears incomplete in the preview, with Day 6 text truncated.
- No verified evidence is shown for royalty-free image sourcing.
  > 💡 Condense to two pages, complete all seven days, and document image sources clearly.

### ❌ `2fa8e956…` — score 2/10
- Document lacks winery details and required comparisons.
- No hours, addresses, phones, distances, or drive times included.
- Only a title and intro paragraph are present.
  > 💡 Rebuild the document with complete winery entries and required formatting.

### ✅ `0e4fe8cd…` — score 7/10
- Day 2 preview is truncated, so completeness cannot be fully verified.
- No evidence of factual online links being populated for all entities.
- Potentially missing the full four-day itinerary details in the preview.
  > 💡 Verify all four sheets contain complete, linked, and fully populated itinerary entries.

### ✅ `aa071045…` — score 6/10
- Service form preview lacks customer, agreement, mileage, and charge details.
- Request type and vehicle status are not shown in the preview.
- Text response is duplicated and not fully professional.
  > 💡 Include all required form fields and provide a concise, non-duplicated summary.

### ❌ `61f546a8…` — score 4/10
- No actual report content is provided in the text response.
- The response mentions Python code, which was not requested.
- The PDF content appears to have formatting and spacing errors.
  > 💡 Provide a complete, polished PDF report with the required two sections only.

### ✅ `f3351922…` — score 8/10
- Text response mentions file creation instead of providing the email content.
- Preview is truncated, so completeness cannot be fully verified.
- No obvious formatting or content errors in the visible email draft.
  > 💡 Provide the full email text directly in the response and ensure all requested details are included.

### ✅ `61717508…` — score 6/10
- Training deck content was not fully verified from the preview.
- Role-play PDF is only 2 pages, not the requested ~10-page deck.
- No evidence the Senior Safe Act and FINRA Rule 2165 were clearly summarized.
  > 💡 Review the deck for length, required legal summaries, and complete content coverage.

### ✅ `0ed38524…` — score 8/10
- Talking points content is truncated in the preview.
- No direct verification of exact district-by-district completeness.
- Text response is generic rather than summarizing findings.
  > 💡 Confirm the talking points include all district themes and specific constituent concerns.

### ❌ `87da214f…` — score 3/10
- No evidence the deck includes required analysis or financial figures.
- Text response is only a file-creation statement, not a complete summary.
- Cannot verify agenda, purpose, remediation, or policy update content from preview.
  > 💡 Provide a content summary confirming all required slide elements and key findings.

### ❌ `d025a41c…` — score 4/10
- Output is only a summary, not the required case feedback content.
- Case Two and Case Three content appears truncated or incomplete.
- No verification of bold headings or 1.5 spacing in the document.
  > 💡 Provide the full Word document with complete case analyses and formatting.

### ✅ `401a07f1…` — score 6/10
- DOCX text appears truncated and ends mid-sentence.
- Reference links are mentioned but not visibly included in the preview.
- Word count may be below the requested 500 words.
  > 💡 Provide a complete 500-word editorial with explicit source links and a finished ending.

### ✅ `afe56d05…` — score 6/10
- Text response is not the required JSON-only QA output.
- File preview is truncated, so completeness cannot be fully verified.
- No clear validation of word count or hyperlink accreditation is shown.
  > 💡 Provide a concise JSON assessment and verify the document fully meets all content requirements.

### ✅ `9a8c8e28…` — score 7/10
- PDFs and source files were produced, but the checklist content was not fully verified.
- The guide preview is truncated, so some required sections may be missing.
- No clear evidence of the quiz answer key, explanations, or scoring guide in the preview.
  > 💡 Confirm the full guide, checklist, and quiz include all required sections and answer materials.

### ✅ `3a4c347c…` — score 6/10
- Missing detailed story ideas and named contributors.
- No explicit 4-week publication and broadcast schedule shown.
- KPIs and sponsorship success measure are not fully specified.
  > 💡 Add the missing sections with specific contributors, dates, and measurable KPIs.

### ✅ `ec2fccc9…` — score 6/10
- Word count and full content could not be verified from the preview.
- Reference links and artist profile targets are not fully confirmable.
- Text response is repetitive and not clearly complete.
  > 💡 Verify the DOCX includes all required sections, links, and target length before delivery.

### ❌ `e222075d…` — score 4/10
- No actual video edit or MP4 file was produced.
- Deliverables are documents only, not the required broadcast spot.
- Response promises local generation instead of completed media.
  > 💡 Produce the 30-second H.264 MP4 and include complete source logs.

### ❌ `c94452e4…` — score 3/10
- No actual 15-second MP4 was produced.
- Only planning documents were delivered, not the broadcast spot.
- Required stock footage and music were not sourced or assembled.
  > 💡 Produce the final 1920x1080 H.264 spot with licensed media and exact 15-second timing.

### ❌ `75401f7c…` — score 4/10
- No evidence the required opening and closing logo shots were used.
- No confirmation of required sound effects or embedded audio placement.
- Text response mentions an extra QC log file not requested.
  > 💡 Verify the edit includes all specified shots, audio cues, and exact runtime constraints.

### ✅ `8079e27d…` — score 6/10
- Workbook has only 70 company rows, not all 500 S&P 500 constituents.
- SubSectors sheet preview is truncated and may omit required market cap and index share fields.
- Text response mentions a blocked web request instead of summarizing delivered analysis.
  > 💡 Expand the workbook to all 500 constituents and verify every required column is present on both sheets.

### ✅ `e21cd746…` — score 8/10
- Some private target details are truncated in the preview.
- No obvious errors in file types or slide count.
- Public comps appear included, but exact valuation tables are not fully visible.
  > 💡 Verify the full deck for completeness and exact company data before sending.

### ✅ `9e8607e7…` — score 8/10
- Deck is 22 pages, below the requested roughly 30 slides.
- Text response mentions PPTX conversion, but the task asked for PDF export.
- No obvious placeholder content, but the deck may be slightly short for a half-hour discussion.
  > 💡 Expand to about 30 slides and ensure the PDF is the primary deliverable.

### ✅ `c7d83f01…` — score 6/10
- No Python notebook file was produced.
- Finite-difference results show severe numerical instability.
- Summary appears truncated and incomplete.
  > 💡 Provide the notebook and stabilize the finite-difference implementation before resubmitting.

### ✅ `a1963a68…` — score 6/10
- Public web research was not directly fetched, weakening source robustness.
- The deck includes extra deliverables beyond the requested PDF presentation.
- Content preview suggests some slides may be truncated or overly generic.
  > 💡 Rebuild the PDF with fully sourced, detailed slides and remove unnecessary extra files.

### ✅ `b78fd844…` — score 6/10
- Only 2 pages; may not meet the 15-page report expectation.
- The allocation section appears truncated in the preview.
- No evidence of full detailed analysis beyond directional estimates.
  > 💡 Provide a complete, non-truncated board report with all required sections.

### ✅ `3f821c2d…` — score 6/10
- Text response is generic and does not confirm target turn or EOM compliance.
- Workbook preview shows blank EOM Inventory and Turn formulas may be missing.
- No evidence the LY comparison is fully formatted side by side.
  > 💡 Verify formulas, targets, and side-by-side LY formatting in the workbook.

### ✅ `e996036e…` — score 6/10
- Only three quarters are shown; Q4 data appears missing.
- Written summary paragraph is not visible in the preview.
- Scenario favorability visual is not verifiable from the provided content.
  > 💡 Confirm the workbook includes all quarterly data, the summary paragraph, and a clear favorability chart.

### ❌ `327fbc21…` — score 3/10
- Workbook targets -15% but actual total is -28.0%.
- No evidence of required 61-63% weekly weighting validation.
- Response is generic and omits the required summary details.
  > 💡 Revise the workbook to meet target percentages and include the required summary.

### ❌ `6dcae3f5…` — score 4/10
- Text response promises an email draft, but task requested Excel analysis deliverable.
- No evidence the benchmark calculations or PGY requirement mapping were completed.
- Output may omit required resident-level identification of when requirements were met.
  > 💡 Verify the workbook contains all calculations, requirement mappings, and resident-level results.

### ✅ `1aecc095…` — score 7/10
- Email content is truncated in the preview.
- No evidence the email is 100-150 words.
- Visio-style visual may not be fully verified from preview.
  > 💡 Verify the email length and review the visual layout against the requested workflow.

### ✅ `0353ee0c…` — score 6/10
- PDF preview is truncated, so completeness cannot be verified.
- No evidence the guide exhaustively consolidates all 19 source links.
- Text response adds filing resources not confirmed in the task sources.
  > 💡 Verify all source links were fully incorporated and remove any unsupported additions.

### ❌ `40a8c4b1…` — score 4/10
- Text response promises validation, but no evidence is provided.
- Schedule may not fully verify required priorities and holiday exclusions.
- No confirmation that unused optional topics were highlighted.
  > 💡 Provide a brief completion summary with explicit checks for required events, dates, and formatting.

### ❌ `4d1a8410…` — score 4/10
- Files appear to contain only headings, not the required detailed schedule.
- Personal itineraries lack the requested one-page applicant-specific timing details.
- Text response mentions photos and logos not requested in the task.
  > 💡 Populate the documents with full timing tables and applicant-specific itineraries.

### ✅ `8c823e32…` — score 6/10
- Text response is only a summary, not the completed policy.
- File content preview appears truncated and may omit required sections.
- No evidence of a fully formatted, review-ready PDF policy document.
  > 💡 Provide the full policy text with all required sections and verify the PDF is complete.

### ✅ `eb54f575…` — score 6/10
- PDF is only 2 pages and the preview shows truncated content.
- Ballistics section appears incomplete in the file preview.
- No evidence the report fully addresses all five required sections.
  > 💡 Provide the complete five-section report with full ballistics justification in the PDF.

### ❌ `11e1b169…` — score 4/10
- PDF is only one page, not the required two pages.
- The PDF preview appears truncated and may omit required legal content.
- Text response mentions source document generation, which was not requested.
  > 💡 Revise the PDF to two complete pages covering every required topic clearly.

### ❌ `efca245f…` — score 4/10
- Scenario 3 capacity is inconsistent with the task's 10-hour shift requirement.
- The workbook preview suggests incomplete validation of all scenario outputs.
- The response does not confirm stat holiday handling or May 1 timing compliance.
  > 💡 Verify each scenario against the task constraints and correct the production assumptions.

### ✅ `9e39df84…` — score 6/10
- Week 1 rows for Operator 1 are blank in the data table.
- Dashboard KPI cells appear incomplete or empty.
- Text response says Dashboard Output.xlsx, but file is named Dashboard Output.xlsx.
  > 💡 Populate all Week 1 data and verify dashboard formulas, charts, and KPI outputs.

### ❌ `1752cb53…` — score 4/10
- No evidence the workbook was actually populated correctly.
- Text response is generic and omits specific plan details.
- File content preview suggests many blank planning cells remain.
  > 💡 Verify all yellow cells are completed and the workbook matches the planning rules exactly.

### ❌ `d4525420…` — score 4/10
- No 5–7 sentence paragraph was provided.
- Response describes files instead of selecting an employee.
- Selection rationale and final recommendation are missing.
  > 💡 Provide a concise paragraph naming the chosen employee and explaining the leadership-focused decision.

### ✅ `cecac8f9…` — score 7/10
- Preparation plan was produced as DOCX, not PDF.
- Launch deck PDF exists, but the plan PDF is missing.
- Text response incorrectly states the plan was converted to PDF.
  > 💡 Regenerate the preparation plan as a PDF and update the response to match the delivered files.

### ✅ `6436ff9e…` — score 8/10
- File content appears truncated in preview.
- Instructor evaluation could be more specific.
- Marketing consent and media permissions may need clearer separation.
  > 💡 Add explicit rating scales and separate consent items for marketing, testimonials, and media use.

### ✅ `40a99a31…` — score 8/10
- Report preview is truncated; full section completeness is unverified.
- AMR payload claim may need validation against the 220 kg requirement.
- No explicit confirmation of six camera placements in the text response.
  > 💡 Verify the report and layout explicitly document all six cameras and the AMR payload.

### ❌ `b9665ca1…` — score 4/10
- Missing evidence the schematic matches all specified wiring details.
- Text response is generic and omits key circuit configuration specifics.
- No verification of correct relay pinout or button-box labeling shown.
  > 💡 Revise the schematic to explicitly show every required connection and label.

### ✅ `c6269101…` — score 6/10
- Requested PDF was not produced; a DOCX report was generated instead.
- Capability thresholds were not explicitly provided, yet capability indices were interpreted.
- The deck content cannot be verified from the preview for completeness.
  > 💡 Regenerate the report as PDF and ensure capability conclusions are clearly tied to provided criteria.

### ✅ `be830ca0…` — score 6/10
- No evidence the PPTX includes all required slide content.
- Text response is generic and lacks analysis results.
- Final timeline and tollgate status are not verified.
  > 💡 Verify slide contents and include explicit statistical findings in the presentation.

### ❌ `cd9efc18…` — score 4/10
- PDF is only 4 pages, not the requested 8-11 pages.
- Trustee/guardian provisions appear incomplete in the preview.
- Text response promises validation, but no validation evidence is shown.
  > 💡 Expand the will to include all requested trust and guardianship terms and meet the page target.

### ✅ `a97369c7…` — score 6/10
- Output is not a memo; it only describes producing files.
- No actual legal analysis is provided in the text response.
- The response omits the required brief primer content.
  > 💡 Provide the memo’s substantive analysis directly in the response and ensure it addresses all three issues.

### ✅ `3f625cb2…` — score 6/10
- The memo content is truncated in the preview, so completeness cannot be confirmed.
- No evidence the PDF stays within the three-page limit.
- The text response promises delivery but does not summarize the legal findings.
  > 💡 Provide the full three-page memo with clear legal conclusions and confirm page count.

### ✅ `aad21e4c…` — score 7/10
- Text response promises a file but omits substantive confirmation of completed drafting.
- Preview suggests the agreement may be incomplete or truncated.
- No explicit verification of all requested investor rights and consent provisions.
  > 💡 Confirm the document fully includes all requested terms and provide a complete content check.

### ✅ `8314d1b1…` — score 6/10
- Preview is truncated, so completeness and citations cannot be fully verified.
- No confirmation the memo stays within 3,500 words.
- March 2025 DGCL § 144 analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate.
  > 💡 Verify the full memo text, word count, and statutory analysis before delivery.

### ❌ `5e2b6aab…` — score 4/10
- No ZIP file is provided for STEP files over five components.
- Required sub-assembly PDF for the head module is missing.
- SCAD files are included, but the task requested STEP models and PDFs only.
  > 💡 Provide the missing head sub-assembly drawing and ensure all required STEP files are properly packaged.

### ❌ `46fc494e…` — score 4/10
- Back-face temperature is constant at 25 C, suggesting a likely modeling error.
- Required 20-minute node profile file is missing; only 200min appears produced.
- Mitigation guidance is unnecessary because the reported margin is far above 10 C.
  > 💡 Recompute the transient model and verify all requested time-point outputs and file names.

### ✅ `3940b7e7…` — score 6/10
- Report text is truncated in the preview, suggesting incomplete content.
- Boundary conditions and simulation environment lack specific numerical details.
- Extracted metrics sheet shows blank values for several key metrics.
  > 💡 Regenerate the report with complete, fully populated tables and explicit CFD setup details.

### ❌ `8077e700…` — score 4/10
- Report omits AISI 1045 results and comparison.
- Several key values are missing or blank in the PDF.
- Only one trend figure is produced, not all required graphs.
  > 💡 Revise the report to include complete 1018 and 1045 analyses, filled tables, and all supporting figures.

### ✅ `5a2d70da…` — score 6/10
- Only two Excel files were produced; the required emai is missing.
- Manufacturing steps workbook appears incomplete for the full task scope.
- No evidence the budget and sales tax were validated against the $7,500 limit.
  > 💡 Add the missing email and verify all deliverables, costs, and tax calculations.

### ✅ `61b0946a…` — score 6/10
- Output is truncated in the preview, so completeness is uncertain.
- The proposal may omit required detailed procedure estimates by participation scenario.
- No evidence the graph or document fully matches the original task's scope.
  > 💡 Verify the full document includes all requested analyses and complete, non-truncated content.

### ✅ `c9bf9801…` — score 6/10
- Guide appears only 3 pages and may be too brief.
- Linked template references are not verifiable in the guide.
- Evaluation forms are referenced but not produced as files.
  > 💡 Expand the guide and confirm all required linked documents and evaluation forms are included.

### ✅ `f1be6436…` — score 6/10
- Missing detailed flight and transportation specifics in the document.
- No discretionary-fund calculation or department coverage breakdown shown.
- Task text appears incomplete regarding return transportation arrangements.
  > 💡 Add full itemized totals, funding allocation, and complete travel details with dated screenshots.

### ❌ `6d2c8e55…` — score 4/10
- Missing one article PDF for each month.
- Schedule file content is not fully verifiable from preview.
- Output text does not confirm all task requirements were completed.
  > 💡 Provide all nine accessible article PDFs and verify the schedule against the source files.

### ✅ `4b98ccce…` — score 7/10
- No visible sign-off beneath the Excel tables.
- Letter content cannot be verified from the preview.
- Text response omits the employee name and ID details.
  > 💡 Verify the workbook sign-offs and letter text include all required template and HIPAA elements.

### ✅ `ef8719da…` — score 6/10
- File content appears truncated in the preview.
- No visible hyperlinks confirmed in the provided text.
- Need clearer evidence of draft timeline and source balance.
  > 💡 Verify the full document includes all required sections and working links.

### ✅ `3baa0009…` — score 6/10
- No evidence the article is 300-500 words.
- Chart data for 2024, 2025, and 2027 is not verified.
- Text response is a process note, not the deliverable itself.
  > 💡 Provide the final article text and confirm the chart matches the requested World Bank figures.

### ❌ `5d0feb24…` — score 4/10
- Response ignores the requested QA evaluation and only describes a deliverable.
- No assessment of file completeness, accuracy, or missing requirements is provided.
- The output is not a concise inspection result as required.
  > 💡 Provide a brief JSON verdict evaluating the deliverable against the task requirements.

### ✅ `6974adea…` — score 6/10
- Preview is truncated, so full word count and structure cannot be verified.
- No evidence the article meets the 1,000-1,500 word requirement.
- Word document content quality and Guardian style compliance are not fully confirmable.
  > 💡 Provide the full document text and verify length, headings, and style compliance.

### ✅ `1a78e076…` — score 6/10
- File content appears truncated in preview, so completeness is uncertain.
- No evidence of the required 10-15 page length or reference count.
- Text response is generic and does not confirm all requested analyses were completed.
  > 💡 Verify the full document includes all required sections, analyses, and reference limits.

### ✅ `0112fc9b…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises a DOCX but does not provide the SOAP note content.
- Plan appears incomplete in the preview and may omit full follow-up instructions.
- No clear confirmation that all required clinical details were fully addressed.
  > 💡 Provide the complete SOAP note content and verify all required sections are fully included.

### ❌ `772e7524…` — score 4/10
- Text response does not provide the SOAP note itself.
- Deliverables are files only, not a complete written response.
- Preview shows OCR-like errors and truncated content.
  > 💡 Provide a complete, polished SOAP note in the response and ensure clean file content.

### ✅ `e6429658…` — score 6/10
- Appeal letter is only 2 pages, not 2-4 pages long.
- AbbVie application was saved as XLSX, not a completed form file.
- Text response does not mention the required manufacturer assistance application completion.
  > 💡 Regenerate the assistance form in the correct format and verify all task requirements.

### ✅ `1137e2bb…` — score 6/10
- Word summary is truncated and contains an incomplete sentence.
- SKU-level summary lacks explicit PO-level drilldown detail.
- No evidence the workbook includes a true pivot or drilldown capability.
  > 💡 Complete the summary text and verify the summary tab supports PO-level drilldown.

### ✅ `664a42e5…` — score 6/10
- No side-by-side comparison is shown in the preview.
- The text response mentions a PDF handout, not just the requested presentation.
- The presentation content cannot be verified from the preview alone.
  > 💡 Add the missing comparison slide and ensure the deck fully covers every required ILIT topic.

### ✅ `feb5eefc…` — score 6/10
- PDF is only 3 pages, not the requested 12 or fewer with fuller analysis.
- Text response is a placeholder and does not summarize the actual recommendation.
- CRAT details appear truncated in the preview, risking incomplete coverage.
  > 💡 Revise the report to fully address all requirements and provide a substantive summary.

### ✅ `3600de06…` — score 8/10
- Preview is truncated, so full slide compliance cannot be fully verified.
- Text response promises a PDF, but no detailed content summary is provided.
- No explicit citation detail is visible for FINRA and NAIC source use.
  > 💡 Verify all 10 slides include sourced FINRA and NAIC guidance with clear advisor talking points.

### ✅ `f9f82549…` — score 6/10
- PDF title matches, but flowchart title requirement is inconsistent.
- PPTX content cannot be verified from preview.
- Text response promises validation not evidenced by files.
  > 💡 Align titles exactly and ensure the PPTX clearly maps each flowchart header to incident details.

### ✅ `84322284…` — score 6/10
- Text response only states intent, not the completed report.
- PDF content appears incomplete and may be truncated.
- Timeline and recommendations are present, but analysis is limited.
  > 💡 Provide a fully written report with clearer analysis and verified complete PDF content.

### ✅ `6241e678…` — score 5/10
- Missing required client tasks and approvals from the task list.
- Schedule appears to omit or alter required phase durations and revision counts.
- Text response claims extra files not requested and lacks deliverable-specific detail.
  > 💡 Align the schedule exactly to all listed tasks, durations, and client review periods.

### ✅ `e4f664ea…` — score 6/10
- Response promises file generation instead of delivering the screenplay content.
- Preview shows a truncated screenplay, suggesting incomplete output.
- Minor formatting error: 'CONTINUO' appears truncated.
  > 💡 Provide the complete screenplay in proper format and verify all files are fully generated.

### ❌ `02aa1805…` — score 2/10
- Workbook lacks extracted well data and required screening results.
- Potential Wells tab is empty, so no recommendations were identified.
- Email draft is generic and does not name top viable wells.
  > 💡 Populate the workbook with actual factsheet data and specific recommended wells.

### ✅ `fd6129bd…` — score 6/10
- SOP preview is truncated, so completeness cannot be fully verified.
- Change Request Form content appears minimal and may lack required fields.
- Text response is generic and does not confirm final deliverable completion.
  > 💡 Provide full document content and verify the form includes all required fields.

### ❌ `ce864f41…` — score 4/10
- No brief responses to the three questions were provided.
- The workbook content was not verified beyond the filename.
- The text response promises validation but gives no findings.
  > 💡 Include concise answers to all three questions and confirm workbook contents.

### ✅ `58ac1cc5…` — score 6/10
- Change control PDF content appears truncated in the preview.
- No explicit evidence the risk assessment is a separate Word document with required mitigation details.
- Internal summary note content was not previewed for completeness.
  > 💡 Verify the full documents include all required sections, actions, and final disposition language.

### ❌ `3c19c6d1…` — score 4/10
- Missing evidence that slide 4 uses the required tabular summary.
- No verification of required slide content or exact section titles.
- Text response is generic and does not confirm report completeness.
  > 💡 Review the deck against each required slide and confirm exact content.

### ✅ `55ddb773…` — score 6/10
- Preview is truncated, so completeness cannot be fully verified.
- No evidence the form includes every required violation detail from the attachment.
- Text response promises verification, but no verification result is shown.
  > 💡 Provide the full form content and confirm all required violation categories are included.

### ❌ `1e5a1d7f…` — score 4/10
- DOCX preview shows no table content.
- Required columns are not visible in the file preview.
- Text response promises a Python script not listed as produced.
  > 💡 Add the full table with all required columns and verify all deliverables are included.

### ✅ `0419f1c3…` — score 8/10
- Preview is truncated, so full completeness cannot be fully verified.
- PDF and DOCX were produced, but content quality beyond preview is uncertain.
  > 💡 Confirm the full document includes all required sections and complete signature lines.

### ✅ `ed2bc14c…` — score 6/10
- File content appears truncated in the preview.
- Communication plan details are incomplete in the visible document.
- Community event description is cut off before completion.
  > 💡 Verify the full Word document includes all required sections and complete details.

### ✅ `46bc7238…` — score 8/10
- Preview shows no obvious missing required sections.
- File content appears professional and on-task.
- Stock photo inclusion cannot be fully verified from preview.
  > 💡 Verify all pages include free stock photos and final PDF formatting.

### ✅ `2d06bc0a…` — score 9/10
- Minor typo in property address spelling may remain.
- Closing extension deposit wording is slightly awkward.
  > 💡 Verify the final document for address accuracy and polish the extension clause language.

### ❌ `0818571f…` — score 3/10
- No live June 2025 listings were sourced from Crexi or LoopNet.
- Files are templates with TBD placeholders, not completed acquisition opportunities.
- Required photos, maps, tenant mix, and transaction metrics are missing.
  > 💡 Populate the report with verified active listings and complete all property-level details.

### ❌ `11593a50…` — score 4/10
- Map PDF lacks visible property pins and spread details.
- Summary CSV shows wrong city and zip values.
- List date is N/A for all homes.
  > 💡 Correct the listing data and regenerate the map with clearly pinned properties.

### ❌ `94925f49…` — score 4/10
- Reports are only one page each, not clearly PDF reports with full required detail.
- No evidence of live reputable school or real estate source usage.
- Home listings appear placeholder-like and may not be verified current listings.
  > 💡 Regenerate the reports with sourced, current school data and verified nearby listings.

### ✅ `90f37ff3…` — score 8/10
- PDF preview is truncated, so full content cannot be fully verified.
- No explicit source citations or dates are visible in the preview.
- Recommendation wording varies slightly between $30.50 and $29.50 per SF.
  > 💡 Align the final recommended rate consistently and add clear comp source dates.

### ❌ `1bff4551…` — score 4/10
- Missing YouTube links for every song.
- Set list omits required research on collection representation.
- Output includes a DOCX file, not only the requested PDF.
  > 💡 Add song links and collection-based context, then deliver only the finalized PDF.

### ✅ `650adcb1…` — score 6/10
- No evidence the sixth time-off tab is included.
- Coverage gaps are not clearly summarized in the workbook.
- Text response is generic and omits validation of requested dates.
  > 💡 Add the missing request tab and a clear coverage summary with all understaffed dates.

### ✅ `116e791e…` — score 8/10
- File preview is truncated, so the third diagnosis cannot be fully verified.
- Text response is generic and does not confirm all required care plan elements.
- No obvious formatting or file-type errors were detected.
  > 💡 Verify the full PDF includes three complete diagnoses with all required outcomes, assessments, and interventions.

### ✅ `dd724c67…` — score 6/10
- TFU guide may not reflect the exact CMS methodology report wording.
- Facility list may be incomplete for all Long Island hospitals and rehabilitation facilities.
- Text response is generic and does not confirm research or completeness.
  > 💡 Verify all facilities and CMS timeframes against source documents, then update the workbook.

### ❌ `7151c60a…` — score 4/10
- Checklist lacks the required table format and document fields.
- Fax cover sheet is missing sender, recipient, date, subject, and page count fields.
- Text response is generic and does not confirm all required elements were included.
  > 💡 Revise both documents to include every required field and the checklist table format.

### ❌ `90edba97…` — score 3/10
- Output is only a narrative, not completed spreadsheet data entry.
- No patient-specific lab results or monthly treatment changes are shown.
- The response does not verify all required sheets and protocol actions were completed.
  > 💡 Populate the workbook with all patient monthly values and documented protocol-based changes.

### ✅ `8384083a…` — score 7/10
- PDF text is truncated in preview, so completeness cannot be fully verified.
- Ozempic days supply is presented as multiple values, which may confuse the standard package calculation.
- The response text is generic and does not confirm the required NDCs and formulas were included.
  > 💡 Revise the PDF to clearly show each medication’s exact NDC, package, formula, and single days-supply result.

### ✅ `045aba2e…` — score 8/10
- Monthly checklist preview is truncated, so full content cannot be verified.
- No explicit evidence of exact California lawbook or self-assessment citations.
- Text response promises validation, but validation details are not shown.
  > 💡 Provide full checklist content and cite the governing California references more explicitly.

### ❌ `f2986c1f…` — score 3/10
- No medications were identified from the image.
- Spreadsheet contains only NA values and one unknown type.
- MedlinePlus counseling links were not provided.
  > 💡 Identify each pill from the image and populate all required fields with source links.

### ✅ `b3573f20…` — score 7/10
- Preview is truncated, so page 3 completeness cannot be fully verified.
- Text response is generic and does not confirm the PDF content details.
- No explicit evidence of sufficient spacing or easy-completion layout.
  > 💡 Provide the full PDF text and confirm all three pages are complete and clearly formatted.

### ✅ `74ed1dc7…` — score 6/10
- File content appears truncated in the preview.
- Proposal details are incomplete in the visible content.
- Cannot verify all required order types and rationale are fully covered.
  > 💡 Provide the full document content and confirm all proposed order types are explicitly detailed.

### ❌ `d7cfae6f…` — score 4/10
- Text response is generic and does not confirm the workbook contents.
- The file appears to include duplicate brand rows without explanation.
- No evidence of a blank comments placeholder or correct Q1 2024 framing.
  > 💡 Verify the workbook matches all required sections, totals, and unique brand-level recaps.

### ❌ `105f8ad0…` — score 4/10
- Workbook appears to use placeholder benchmark values without source evidence.
- Rationale contains a concentration typo and repetitive wording.
- No proof of online research or September 2025 competitor pricing is included.
  > 💡 Add sourced competitor pricing, verify concentration labels, and document the benchmark calculations clearly.

### ❌ `b57efde3…` — score 2/10
- Only five records were reviewed, not the hundreds of exhibitors requested.
- Rows contain generic page text instead of real company leads and product details.
- The file appears to use placeholder/manual-review entries rather than verified exhibitor data.
  > 💡 Rebuild the spreadsheet from the official exhibitor list with verified company-specific leads and details.

### ❌ `15d37511…` — score 3/10
- Pricing values are missing, leaving the financial model incomplete.
- Spreadsheet contains placeholder zeros instead of required revenue and margin calculations.
- Memo notes missing source pricing details rather than delivering the requested analysis.
  > 💡 Rebuild the workbook using the exact email pricing and calculate all requested margins.

### ❌ `fe0d3941…` — score 4/10
- Physician questions contain text corruption and formatting errors.
- Survey pages are not clearly titled exactly as requested.
- Workflow presentation content cannot be verified from the preview.
  > 💡 Regenerate the survey with clean wording and verify the presentation includes all required slides.

### ✅ `9efbcd35…` — score 6/10
- Preview is truncated, so completeness cannot be fully verified.
- No evidence of source citations or MSCI data usage in the document.
- Text response is generic and does not confirm all required sections are included.
  > 💡 Verify the full DOCX includes all required sections, sources, and a concise four-page client-ready summary.

### ❌ `1d4672c8…` — score 4/10
- Fallback dataset used instead of MSCI website data.
- PDF content not verified from preview.
- Analysis may not reflect actual historical returns.
  > 💡 Replace fallback data with sourced MSCI data and regenerate both files.

### ❌ `4de6a529…` — score 4/10
- Text response promises a source script, but only the PDF is produced.
- Preview shows truncated content, so completeness cannot be verified.
- The deliverable may not fully satisfy the required detailed table formatting.
  > 💡 Provide the complete PDF content and include all requested deliverables.

### ✅ `bb499d9c…` — score 8/10
- Preview is truncated, so completeness cannot be fully verified.
- No explicit confirmation of the 25-page limit.
- Text response mentions a Python script, but only the DOCX file is listed.
  > 💡 Verify the full document length and include any promised supporting script if required.

### ✅ `5349dd7b…` — score 6/10
- FedEx extra large box is marked N/A, but analysis still needs explicit exclusion handling.
- Text response is generic and does not summarize findings or recommendations.
- Workbook appears complete, but the rate history row for FedEx has inconsistent formatting.
  > 💡 Revise the workbook notes and response to clearly document exclusions and key recommendations.

### ✅ `a4a9195c…` — score 6/10
- Document appears truncated in preview, so completeness cannot be fully verified.
- No explicit Word-format validation or page count confirmation is shown.
- Reference standard is cited, but alignment to IPC-A-610G is not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Verify the full DOCX content, page count, and compliance details before delivery.

### ❌ `76418a2c…` — score 3/10
- Excel manifest appears blank with no shipment data populated.
- No evidence of pick ticket processing or savings calculations.
- Text response promises a DOCX summary but does not confirm completed content.
  > 💡 Populate the manifest with all orders and verify calculated shipping methods and savings.

### ✅ `0e386e32…` — score 6/10
- Privacy logic is incomplete; zkSNARK unlinking is not fully evidenced.
- Yield generation via Aave is mentioned but not clearly verified in files.
- Cross-chain withdrawal implementation details are only described, not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Include explicit Aave, zkSNARK, and Connext implementation evidence in the codebase.

## Failure Analysis

The run shows two distinct failure modes: hard execution failures and soft requirement misses. The 13 terminal errors were dominated by brittle code assumptions and unsupported library usage rather than pure reasoning failure. Spreadsheet/parser assumptions broke on task_ids 7b08cd4d-df60-41ae-9102-8aaa49306ba2 (no revenue rows found), b7a5912e-0e63-41f5-8c22-9cdb8f46ab01 (float in header join), a0552909-bc66-4a3a-8970-ee0d17b49718 (header row not found), 11dcc268-cb07-4d3a-a184-c6d7a19349bc (missing PO#), and 6a900a40-8d2b-4064-a5b1-13a60bc173d8 (Total EXW row not located). API/syntax mistakes caused several others: 85d95ce5-b20c-41e2-834e-e788ce9622b6 used a non-existent python-docx method, 4d61a19a-8438-4d4c-9fc2-cf167e36dcd6 referenced MSO_SHAPE.FOLDER, 01d7e53e-0513-4109-a242-8ccaf442cd21 had an unclosed parenthesis, and 7de33b48-5163-4f50-b5f3-8deea8185e57 plus 4122f866-01fa-400b-904d-fa171cdab7c7 had unterminated triple-quoted strings. Sector clustering follows this pattern: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services was dragged down mainly by Software Developers (3/5 errors: 7de33b48-5163-4f50-b5f3-8deea8185e57, 854f3814-681c-4950-91ac-55b0db0e3781, 4122f866-01fa-400b-904d-fa171cdab7c7), while Retail Trade lost completions through General and Operations Managers and Pharmacists, and Government lost completions in Social Work and Recreation tasks.

Comparing low-QA successes against strong successes shows a clear modality pattern. High-performing tasks were usually deterministic template-fill or structured spreadsheet outputs using supplied inputs, such as 62f04c2f-e0f7-4710-876c-54ee9c2e8256 (QA 10), b5d2e6f1-62a2-433a-bcdd-95b260cdd860 (QA 9), 5f6c57dd-feb6-4e70-b152-4969d92d1608 (QA 8), and 0fad6023-767b-42c1-a1b3-027cd4f583cb (QA 9). Low-QA successes clustered where the task demanded live web research, media generation, or exact multi-file packaging. Examples include e222075d-5d62-4757-ae3c-e34b0846583b and c94452e4-39cd-4846-b73a-ab75933d1ad7, where film/video tasks produced planning documents instead of MP4s; 75401f7c-396d-406d-b08e-938874ad1045, which ran long but still had missing edit verification; 0818571f-5ff7-4d39-9d2c-ced5ae44299e, 11593a50-734d-4449-b5b4-f8986a133fd8, and 94925f49-36bc-42da-b45b-61078d329300, where real-estate tasks lacked verified live listing data; 2fa8e956-7b35-4c13-95dc-027f02be318b (QA 2) with an almost empty concierge guide; 02aa1805-c658-4069-8a6a-02dec146063a (QA 2) with an empty screening workbook; and b57efde3-26d6-4742-bbff-2b63c43b4baa (QA 2), which reviewed only five exhibitors instead of the requested broad prospect list. A second soft-failure pattern was deliverable mismatch: wrong format, missing companion file, or response-only compliance failures, as seen in cecac8f9-8203-4ebd-ad49-54436a8c4171 (DOCX not PDF), c6269101-fdc8-4602-b345-eac7597c0c81 (DOCX instead of requested PDF), 5e2b6aab-f9fb-4dd6-a1a5-874ef1743909 (missing ZIP/PDF package elements), c7d83f01-2874-4876-b7fd-52582ec99e1a (missing notebook), 1b1ade2d-f9f6-4a04-baa5-aa15012b53be (missing script), afe56d05-dac8-47d7-a233-ad1d035ca5bd and 5d0feb24-e8b6-4ace-b64f-d5cd1a8b563d (wrong response mode for QA/JSON-style asks).

Retry behavior helped operational completion but did not reliably improve semantic quality. All 13 terminal failures had already been retried, so the existing retry policy did not rescue parser, syntax, or API-compatibility faults. Retries did recover some transient jobs well, including ff85ee58-bc9f-4aa2-806d-87edeabb1b81 (QA 9), c357f0e2-963d-4eb7-a6fa-3078fe55b3ba (QA 9), 4520f882-715a-482d-8e87-1cb3cbdfe975 (QA 8), and a73fbc98-90d4-4134-a54f-2b1d0c838791 (QA 8). But many retried successes still landed with notable defects: 87da214f-fd92-4c58-9854-f4d0d10adce0 (QA 3), 327fbc21-7d26-4964-bf7c-f4f41e55c54d (QA 3), 7d7fc9a7-21a7-4b83-906f-416dea5ad04f (QA 6), 38889c3b-e3d4-49c8-816a-3cc8e5313aba (QA 6), e6429658-4de1-42dd-a9e0-2d2b9b02fb10 (QA 6), and 94925f49-36bc-42da-b45b-61078d329300 (QA 4). This suggests retries are mainly clearing transient execution issues, not fixing misread schemas, incomplete research coverage, or wrong deliverable modality.

Latency did not buy quality. Several of the longest tasks were mediocre: a10ec48c-168e-476c-8fe3-23b2a5f616ac took 132.9s for QA 6, and 75401f7c-396d-406d-b08e-938874ad1045 took 120.9s for QA 4. Meanwhile short structured tasks were often strong, such as 60221cd0-686e-4a08-985e-d9bb2fa18501 at 4.9s with QA 8 and 81db15ff-ceea-4f63-a1cd-06dc88114709 at 7.4s with QA 9. Some failures were nearly immediate, especially 854f3814-681c-4950-91ac-55b0db0e3781 at 1.6s with no code and 7de33b48-5163-4f50-b5f3-8deea8185e57 at 7.0s with a syntax error, indicating output-contract and code-assembly problems rather than insufficient reasoning time. Overall, complexity mattered more than runtime: tasks combining external research, media editing, file conversion, or many artifact constraints were far more failure-prone than tasks grounded in provided structured inputs.

## Recommendations

First, harden the execution layer for structured-file tasks. The biggest preventable failures came from rigid parsers and library misuse, so add a preflight inspection step before any workbook or document transformation. For spreadsheet jobs, normalize cell types to strings, scan the first N rows for likely headers, maintain synonym maps for common columns, and continue with warnings instead of crashing when an exact label is absent; that directly targets failures like 7b08cd4d-df60-41ae-9102-8aaa49306ba2, b7a5912e-0e63-41f5-8c22-9cdb8f46ab01, a0552909-bc66-4a3a-8970-ee0d17b49718, 11dcc268-cb07-4d3a-a184-c6d7a19349bc, and 6a900a40-8d2b-4064-a5b1-13a60bc173d8. For document and presentation generation, lock a vetted helper layer around python-docx/python-pptx and run a compile/lint smoke test before execution to catch unsupported methods and unclosed strings; that would likely have prevented 85d95ce5-b20c-41e2-834e-e788ce9622b6, 4d61a19a-8438-4d4c-9fc2-cf167e36dcd6, 01d7e53e-0513-4109-a242-8ccaf442cd21, 7de33b48-5163-4f50-b5f3-8deea8185e57, and 4122f866-01fa-400b-904d-fa171cdab7c7.

Second, tighten prompt contracts around deliverable compliance. Many low-QA outputs were not wrong because the content was incoherent; they were wrong because the model produced the wrong thing, in the wrong format, or spoke in future tense instead of verifying completion. Add task-type-specific prompt suffixes that require: exact artifact manifest (filenames, extensions, page counts), exact response mode (JSON-only, paragraph-only, or file-only), and a completion checklist stating what was actually produced rather than "I will create" language. That would address frequent soft misses such as cecac8f9-8203-4ebd-ad49-54436a8c4171, c6269101-fdc8-4602-b345-eac7597c0c81, 5e2b6aab-f9fb-4dd6-a1a5-874ef1743909, c7d83f01-2874-4876-b7fd-52582ec99e1a, 1b1ade2d-f9f6-4a04-baa5-aa15012b53be, d4525420-a427-4ef2-b4e9-2dcc2d31b3b6, afe56d05-dac8-47d7-a233-ad1d035ca5bd, and 5d0feb24-e8b6-4ace-b64f-d5cd1a8b563d. A simple ban on unsupported filler phrases like "likely attachments" or "validation completed" unless accompanied by explicit evidence would also reduce false-complete outputs like 43dc9778-450b-4b46-b77e-b6d82b202035 and ee09d943-5a11-430a-b7a2-971b4e9b01b5.

Third, route high-risk task types to specialized capability stacks instead of treating them like generic document generation. Media-editing jobs should be gated through a media-capable toolchain with deterministic validators for file existence, duration, codec, and resolution; otherwise the system keeps returning plans instead of assets, as seen in e222075d-5d62-4757-ae3c-e34b0846583b, c94452e4-39cd-4846-b73a-ab75933d1ad7, 75401f7c-396d-406d-b08e-938874ad1045, and a941b6d8-4289-4500-b45a-f8e4fc94a724. Live web research tasks should use retrieval/browser mode with source logging and completeness counters, because the weakest research outputs were either placeholders or partial samples: 8079e27d-b6f3-4f75-a9b5-db27903c798d had only 70 of 500 rows, 0818571f-5ff7-4d39-9d2c-ced5ae44299e used TBD listings, 11593a50-734d-4449-b5b4-f8986a133fd8 had wrong property data, 94925f49-36bc-42da-b45b-61078d329300 lacked verified current listings, 2fa8e956-7b35-4c13-95dc-027f02be318b omitted core researched fields, b57efde3-26d6-4742-bbff-2b63c43b4baa covered only five exhibitors, and 1d4672c8-b0a7-488f-905f-9ab4e25a19f7 relied on fallback data. The successful pattern in this run was supplied-input transformation, so the system should explicitly detect when external retrieval is essential and switch tools rather than improvising.

Fourth, change retry and QA policy from generic rerun to targeted verification-and-repair. The current behavior shows retries help with transient execution but do little for semantic completeness: 87da214f-fd92-4c58-9854-f4d0d10adce0, 327fbc21-7d26-4964-bf7c-f4f41e55c54d, 38889c3b-e3d4-49c8-816a-3cc8e5313aba, e6429658-4de1-42dd-a9e0-2d2b9b02fb10, and 94925f49-36bc-42da-b45b-61078d329300 all retried but still shipped low-quality results, while all terminal errors had already retried once. A better loop is: run generation once, pass the artifacts through deterministic validators for file count, extension, naming, page count, tab count, non-empty tables, and task-specific content checks, then issue a repair prompt that cites exact failures. Also raise a stricter QA threshold for tasks with known high-risk signatures: long latency plus multi-file output, response-only compliance requests, live web research, or media rendering. This would preserve the gains seen in successful retried tasks like ff85ee58-bc9f-4aa2-806d-87edeabb1b81 and c357f0e2-963d-4eb7-a6fa-3078fe55b3ba while reducing the large class of "successful but obviously incomplete" outputs.

## Deliverable Files

- `83d10b06…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `7d7fc9a7…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `43dc9778…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 4 file(s)
- `ee09d943…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `f84ea6ac…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `a328feea…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `27e8912c…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `17111c03…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `c44e9b62…` (Government): 4 file(s)
- `99ac6944…` (Information): 5 file(s)
- `f9a1c16c…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `38889c3b…` (Information): 6 file(s)
- `ff85ee58…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `4b894ae3…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `1b1ade2d…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `93b336f3…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `15ddd28d…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `24d1e93f…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `05389f78…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `575f8679…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a74ead3b…` (Government): 4 file(s)
- `bbe0a93b…` (Government): 3 file(s)
- `76d10872…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `36d567ba…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `7bbfcfe9…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `2696757c…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `dfb4e0cd…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `4c18ebae…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `cebf301e…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `c2e8f271…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `2ea2e5b5…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 5 file(s)
- `c357f0e2…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 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): 2 file(s)
- `2fa8e956…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `0e4fe8cd…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `a0ef404e…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `aa071045…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `476db143…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `61f546a8…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `f3351922…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `61717508…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `0ed38524…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `87da214f…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `d025a41c…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `401a07f1…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `afe56d05…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `9a8c8e28…` (Information): 7 file(s)
- `3a4c347c…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `ec2fccc9…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `8c8fc328…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `e222075d…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `c94452e4…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `75401f7c…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `8079e27d…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `e21cd746…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `9e8607e7…` (Finance and Insurance): 5 file(s)
- `c7d83f01…` (Finance and Insurance): 5 file(s)
- `46b34f78…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `a1963a68…` (Finance and Insurance): 5 file(s)
- `5f6c57dd…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `b39a5aa7…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `b78fd844…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `4520f882…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `ec591973…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `62f04c2f…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `3f821c2d…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `e996036e…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `327fbc21…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `6dcae3f5…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `1aecc095…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 4 file(s)
- `0353ee0c…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `40a8c4b1…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `4d1a8410…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `8c823e32…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `eb54f575…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `11e1b169…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `a95a5829…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `22c0809b…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `bf68f2ad…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `efca245f…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `9e39df84…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `68d8d901…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `1752cb53…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `bd72994f…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `211d0093…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `d4525420…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `45c6237b…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `cecac8f9…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `8f9e8bcd…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `0fad6023…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `02314fc6…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `6436ff9e…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `8a7b6fca…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `40a99a31…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `b9665ca1…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `c6269101…` (Manufacturing): 5 file(s)
- `be830ca0…` (Manufacturing): 7 file(s)
- `cd9efc18…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `a97369c7…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `3f625cb2…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `aad21e4c…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `8314d1b1…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `5e2b6aab…` (Manufacturing): 21 file(s)
- `46fc494e…` (Manufacturing): 9 file(s)
- `3940b7e7…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `8077e700…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `5a2d70da…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `74d6e8b0…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `81db15ff…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `61b0946a…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `61e7b9c6…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `c9bf9801…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 5 file(s)
- `f1be6436…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 5 file(s)
- `41f6ef59…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `6d2c8e55…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 11 file(s)
- `4b98ccce…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `60221cd0…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `ef8719da…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `3baa0009…` (Information): 4 file(s)
- `5d0feb24…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `6974adea…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `1a78e076…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `1b9ec237…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `0112fc9b…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `772e7524…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `e6429658…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `b5d2e6f1…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `f841ddcf…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `47ef842d…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `1137e2bb…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `c3525d4d…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `9a0d8d36…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `664a42e5…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `feb5eefc…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `3600de06…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `c657103b…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `ae0c1093…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `f9f82549…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `57b2cdf2…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `84322284…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `a46d5cd2…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `6241e678…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `e14e32ba…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `b1a79ce1…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `e4f664ea…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `a079d38f…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `02aa1805…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `fd6129bd…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `ce864f41…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `58ac1cc5…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 4 file(s)
- `3c19c6d1…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `a99d85fc…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `55ddb773…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `1e5a1d7f…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `0419f1c3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `ed2bc14c…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `46bc7238…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 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): 3 file(s)
- `6074bba3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 4 file(s)
- `5ad0c554…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 4 file(s)
- `11593a50…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `94925f49…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 8 file(s)
- `90f37ff3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `d3d255b2…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `403b9234…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `1bff4551…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `650adcb1…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a73fbc98…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `0ec25916…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 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): 2 file(s)
- `90edba97…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `91060ff0…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `8384083a…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `045aba2e…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `f2986c1f…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `b3573f20…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `a69be28f…` (Wholesale Trade): 13 file(s)
- `788d2bc6…` (Wholesale Trade): 9 file(s)
- `74ed1dc7…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `69a8ef86…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `ab81b076…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `d7cfae6f…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `19403010…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `7ed932dd…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `105f8ad0…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `b57efde3…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `15d37511…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `bb863dd9…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `fe0d3941…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `9efbcd35…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `1d4672c8…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `4de6a529…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `4c4dc603…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `bb499d9c…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `5349dd7b…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `a4a9195c…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `552b7dd0…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `76418a2c…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `0e386e32…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 3 file(s)
- `2c249e0f…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
