# Experiment Report: GPT-5.4 Reasoning MEDIUM — Full Benchmark (Ablation 2/4)

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| **Experiment ID** | `exp014_GPT54_reasoning_medium` |
| **Condition** | GPT-5.4 reasoning=medium + gpt-audio-1.5 preprocessor |
| **Model** | gpt-5.4 |
| **Execution Mode** | subprocess |
| **Date** | 2026-03-31 |
| **Duration** | 423m 33s |
| **Generated At** | 2026-03-31T08:17:50.461550+00:00 |
| 🤗 HF Dataset | [exp014_GPT54_reasoning_medium](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp014_GPT54_reasoning_medium) |
| 📊 Self-Report | [self_report.json](https://huggingface.co/datasets/HyeonSang/exp014_GPT54_reasoning_medium/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 in reasoning=medium mode with a gpt-audio-1.5 preprocessing step, executed in subprocess mode across 220 benchmark tasks. Overall task completion was strong: 211 of 220 tasks succeeded, for a 95.9% completion rate, with 9 errors recorded. The system retried 47 tasks, which indicates some instability at execution time but also shows recovery behavior that preserved final completion on many items.

LLM-evaluated quality was moderate rather than uniformly high. The average self-assessed confidence score was 5.96/10, with a wide range from 2 to 9. That profile suggests the model usually produced workable outputs, but often with only middling internal confidence and a non-trivial tail of lower-confidence deliverables.

Sector results were generally consistent, with full completion in Government, Health Care and Social Assistance, Real Estate and Rental and Leasing, and Retail Trade. The weakest completion rate appeared in Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services at 21/25, followed by Wholesale Trade at 23/25. Government also had the strongest average self-assessed confidence at 6.6/10, while Health Care and Social Assistance was lower at 5.4/10 despite perfect task completion.

Average latency was 86,505 ms, with meaningful sector variation. Information was slowest at 120,033 ms on average, while Wholesale Trade was fastest at 67,216 ms and Retail Trade was also relatively fast at 71,507 ms. As a proxy for deliverable file generation quality, output production reliability was high because most tasks completed successfully, but the mid-range self-assessed confidence scores indicate the generated deliverables were more often acceptable than strongly confident.

## Key Metrics

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Tasks | 220 |
| Success | 211 (95.9%) |
| Errors | 9 |
| Retried Tasks | 47 |
| Avg QA Score | 5.96/10 |
| Min QA Score | 2/10 |
| Max QA Score | 9/10 |
| Avg Latency | 86,505ms |
| Max Latency | 587,785ms |
| Total LLM Time | 19031s |

## File Generation

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Tasks requiring files | 0 |
| Successfully generated | 0 (0.0%) |
| Failed → dummy created | 0 |

### Resume Rounds

| Round | Attempted | Recovered | Still Failed |
|-------|-----------|-----------|--------------|
| 1 | 30 | 30 | 0 |
| 2 | 17 | 8 | 9 |

## Quality Analysis

The QA score distribution points to a center of mass around moderate confidence. An average of 5.96/10, with a minimum of 2 and maximum of 9, indicates that the run did not collapse in quality, but it also did not consistently produce high-confidence outputs. The absence of a 10/10 ceiling result and the presence of low-end scores suggest quality variability across prompts and task types.

At the sector level, Government stands out as the strongest combined performer: 25/25 completion with the highest LLM-evaluated quality at 6.6/10. Retail Trade was also solid, with 20/20 completion, 6.2/10 average QA, and relatively low latency. By contrast, Health Care and Social Assistance achieved perfect completion but only 5.4/10 average QA, which implies that successful execution did not always correspond to high self-assessed confidence. Manufacturing showed a similar pattern, with near-complete execution at 24/25 but only 5.5/10 QA.

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services was the clearest stress case on completion, finishing 21/25 tasks with 6.0/10 average QA on the successes. Information had 24/25 completion and 6.1/10 QA, so its quality was slightly above average but not exceptional given its much longer runtime. No occupation-level breakdown was provided, so observations are limited to sector aggregates rather than specific job families or task roles within sectors.

Latency does not show a strong positive relationship with self-assessed confidence. Information incurred the highest average latency yet only modestly above-average QA, while Government achieved the best QA at a materially lower latency. Wholesale Trade and Retail Trade were among the faster sectors and still maintained average-to-above-average QA. Overall, longer runtimes did not reliably buy better LLM-evaluated quality, and deliverable generation quality appears operationally strong on completion but only moderate on confidence.

## Sector Breakdown

| Sector | Tasks | Success | Success% | Avg QA | Avg Latency |
|--------|-------|---------|----------|--------|-------------|
| Finance and Insurance | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 5.96/10 | 98,725ms |
| Government | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 6.6/10 | 81,183ms |
| Health Care and Social Assistance | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 5.36/10 | 82,407ms |
| Information | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 6.12/10 | 120,033ms |
| Manufacturing | 25 | 24 | 96.0% | 5.54/10 | 83,838ms |
| Professional, Scientific, and Technical  | 25 | 21 | 84.0% | 6.0/10 | 89,525ms |
| Real Estate and Rental and Leasing | 25 | 25 | 100.0% | 5.96/10 | 81,117ms |
| Retail Trade | 20 | 20 | 100.0% | 6.15/10 | 71,507ms |
| Wholesale Trade | 25 | 23 | 92.0% | 6.0/10 | 67,216ms |

## Task Results

| # | Task ID | Sector | Occupation | Status | Retry | Files | QA Score | Latency |
|---|---------|--------|------------|--------|-------|-------|----------|---------|
| 1 | `83d10b06…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 93362ms |
| 2 | `7b08cd4d…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 76187ms |
| 3 | `7d7fc9a7…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 86344ms |
| 4 | `43dc9778…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 131774ms |
| 5 | `ee09d943…` | Professional, Scientif | Accountants and Au | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 4/10 | 105833ms |
| 6 | `f84ea6ac…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 45953ms |
| 7 | `a328feea…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 31456ms |
| 8 | `27e8912c…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | - | 6 | 7/10 | 93861ms |
| 9 | `17111c03…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 9/10 | 60516ms |
| 10 | `c44e9b62…` | Government | Administrative Ser | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 5/10 | 87020ms |
| 11 | `99ac6944…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 7 | 6/10 | 131437ms |
| 12 | `f9a1c16c…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 87221ms |
| 13 | `38889c3b…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 7 | 6/10 | 99611ms |
| 14 | `ff85ee58…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 92961ms |
| 15 | `4b894ae3…` | Information | Audio and Video Te | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 7/10 | 98504ms |
| 16 | `1b1ade2d…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 70897ms |
| 17 | `93b336f3…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 66468ms |
| 18 | `15ddd28d…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 80194ms |
| 19 | `24d1e93f…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 65062ms |
| 20 | `05389f78…` | Manufacturing | Buyers and Purchas | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 115788ms |
| 21 | `575f8679…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 76685ms |
| 22 | `a74ead3b…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 4 | 5/10 | 78378ms |
| 23 | `bbe0a93b…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 92292ms |
| 24 | `85d95ce5…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 140306ms |
| 25 | `76d10872…` | Government | Child, Family, and | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 86143ms |
| 26 | `36d567ba…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 36982ms |
| 27 | `7bbfcfe9…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 38198ms |
| 28 | `2696757c…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 23785ms |
| 29 | `dfb4e0cd…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 26129ms |
| 30 | `4c18ebae…` | Government | Compliance Officer | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 88231ms |
| 31 | `cebf301e…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 43796ms |
| 32 | `c2e8f271…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 44035ms |
| 33 | `2ea2e5b5…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 43565ms |
| 34 | `c357f0e2…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 58845ms |
| 35 | `a45bc83b…` | Professional, Scientif | Computer and Infor | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 64972ms |
| 36 | `a10ec48c…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 77526ms |
| 37 | `fccaa4a1…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 69467ms |
| 38 | `f5d428fd…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 83352ms |
| 39 | `2fa8e956…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 66164ms |
| 40 | `0e4fe8cd…` | Real Estate and Rental | Concierges | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 66345ms |
| 41 | `a0ef404e…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 85460ms |
| 42 | `b7a5912e…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 65603ms |
| 43 | `aa071045…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 4/10 | 65498ms |
| 44 | `476db143…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 5/10 | 38507ms |
| 45 | `61f546a8…` | Real Estate and Rental | Counter and Rental | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 4/10 | 73044ms |
| 46 | `f3351922…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 44366ms |
| 47 | `61717508…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 106856ms |
| 48 | `0ed38524…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 5 | 8/10 | 51295ms |
| 49 | `87da214f…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 6/10 | 79078ms |
| 50 | `d025a41c…` | Finance and Insurance | Customer Service R | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 40134ms |
| 51 | `401a07f1…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 8/10 | 37712ms |
| 52 | `afe56d05…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 96763ms |
| 53 | `9a8c8e28…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 134188ms |
| 54 | `3a4c347c…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 75599ms |
| 55 | `ec2fccc9…` | Information | Editors | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 89111ms |
| 56 | `8c8fc328…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 44387ms |
| 57 | `e222075d…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 151501ms |
| 58 | `c94452e4…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 4/10 | 587785ms |
| 59 | `75401f7c…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 2/10 | 130831ms |
| 60 | `a941b6d8…` | Information | Film and Video Edi | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 5/10 | 269146ms |
| 61 | `8079e27d…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 2 | 2/10 | 74925ms |
| 62 | `e21cd746…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 88910ms |
| 63 | `9e8607e7…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 164939ms |
| 64 | `c7d83f01…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 7 | 7/10 | 122809ms |
| 65 | `46b34f78…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial and Inve | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 109726ms |
| 66 | `a1963a68…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 5 | 7/10 | 131469ms |
| 67 | `5f6c57dd…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 2/10 | 121089ms |
| 68 | `b39a5aa7…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 134415ms |
| 69 | `b78fd844…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 94141ms |
| 70 | `4520f882…` | Finance and Insurance | Financial Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 105270ms |
| 71 | `ec591973…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 49603ms |
| 72 | `62f04c2f…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 43199ms |
| 73 | `3f821c2d…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 4/10 | 102728ms |
| 74 | `e996036e…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 64031ms |
| 75 | `327fbc21…` | Wholesale Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 80606ms |
| 76 | `6dcae3f5…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 63579ms |
| 77 | `1aecc095…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 4 | 8/10 | 86695ms |
| 78 | `0353ee0c…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 2/10 | 55548ms |
| 79 | `40a8c4b1…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 97746ms |
| 80 | `4d1a8410…` | Health Care and Social | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 3/10 | 87589ms |
| 81 | `8c823e32…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 147625ms |
| 82 | `eb54f575…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 71056ms |
| 83 | `11e1b169…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 77496ms |
| 84 | `a95a5829…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 132797ms |
| 85 | `22c0809b…` | Government | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 119090ms |
| 86 | `bf68f2ad…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 67269ms |
| 87 | `efca245f…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 5/10 | 85263ms |
| 88 | `9e39df84…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 62018ms |
| 89 | `68d8d901…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 77076ms |
| 90 | `1752cb53…` | Manufacturing | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 70488ms |
| 91 | `bd72994f…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 70254ms |
| 92 | `211d0093…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 47942ms |
| 93 | `d4525420…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 6/10 | 39855ms |
| 94 | `45c6237b…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | - | 5 | 7/10 | 76921ms |
| 95 | `cecac8f9…` | Retail Trade | First-Line Supervi | ✅ success | Yes | 7 | 5/10 | 168505ms |
| 96 | `8f9e8bcd…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 59956ms |
| 97 | `0fad6023…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 51770ms |
| 98 | `02314fc6…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 66250ms |
| 99 | `4d61a19a…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 100073ms |
| 100 | `6436ff9e…` | Retail Trade | General and Operat | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 54260ms |
| 101 | `8a7b6fca…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 64963ms |
| 102 | `40a99a31…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 103585ms |
| 103 | `b9665ca1…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 3 | 3/10 | 83207ms |
| 104 | `c6269101…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 129127ms |
| 105 | `be830ca0…` | Manufacturing | Industrial Enginee | ✅ success | - | 9 | 6/10 | 156753ms |
| 106 | `cd9efc18…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 7/10 | 92598ms |
| 107 | `a97369c7…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 102497ms |
| 108 | `3f625cb2…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 40470ms |
| 109 | `aad21e4c…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 142813ms |
| 110 | `8314d1b1…` | Professional, Scientif | Lawyers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 92578ms |
| 111 | `5e2b6aab…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 10 | 4/10 | 138923ms |
| 112 | `46fc494e…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 6 | 3/10 | 68453ms |
| 113 | `3940b7e7…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 90208ms |
| 114 | `8077e700…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 116837ms |
| 115 | `5a2d70da…` | Manufacturing | Mechanical Enginee | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 101865ms |
| 116 | `74d6e8b0…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 193460ms |
| 117 | `81db15ff…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 1 | 2/10 | 52435ms |
| 118 | `61b0946a…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 140944ms |
| 119 | `61e7b9c6…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 94591ms |
| 120 | `c9bf9801…` | Health Care and Social | Medical and Health | ✅ success | - | 6 | 7/10 | 144225ms |
| 121 | `f1be6436…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 6 | 3/10 | 71869ms |
| 122 | `41f6ef59…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 52685ms |
| 123 | `a0552909…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | Yes | 7 | 7/10 | 61329ms |
| 124 | `6d2c8e55…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 12 | 3/10 | 65174ms |
| 125 | `4b98ccce…` | Health Care and Social | Medical Secretarie | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 82721ms |
| 126 | `60221cd0…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 28571ms |
| 127 | `ef8719da…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 56122ms |
| 128 | `3baa0009…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 39778ms |
| 129 | `5d0feb24…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 123231ms |
| 130 | `6974adea…` | Information | News Analysts, Rep | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 79578ms |
| 131 | `1a78e076…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 163022ms |
| 132 | `1b9ec237…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 99657ms |
| 133 | `0112fc9b…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 31985ms |
| 134 | `772e7524…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 29280ms |
| 135 | `e6429658…` | Health Care and Social | Nurse Practitioner | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 6/10 | 87751ms |
| 136 | `b5d2e6f1…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 1 | 7/10 | 46464ms |
| 137 | `f841ddcf…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 9/10 | 55705ms |
| 138 | `47ef842d…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 55523ms |
| 139 | `1137e2bb…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 45325ms |
| 140 | `c3525d4d…` | Wholesale Trade | Order Clerks | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 63037ms |
| 141 | `9a0d8d36…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 70559ms |
| 142 | `664a42e5…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 106228ms |
| 143 | `feb5eefc…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 4 | 9/10 | 85710ms |
| 144 | `3600de06…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 88442ms |
| 145 | `c657103b…` | Finance and Insurance | Personal Financial | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 101782ms |
| 146 | `ae0c1093…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 4 | 3/10 | 57679ms |
| 147 | `f9f82549…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 4 | 5/10 | 124100ms |
| 148 | `57b2cdf2…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 45467ms |
| 149 | `84322284…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 4 | 7/10 | 95239ms |
| 150 | `a46d5cd2…` | Retail Trade | Private Detectives | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 57997ms |
| 151 | `6241e678…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 6 | 5/10 | 115200ms |
| 152 | `e14e32ba…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 6 | 5/10 | 86912ms |
| 153 | `b1a79ce1…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 9/10 | 174372ms |
| 154 | `e4f664ea…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 94194ms |
| 155 | `a079d38f…` | Information | Producers and Dire | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 7/10 | 76095ms |
| 156 | `02aa1805…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 2 | 2/10 | 46993ms |
| 157 | `fd6129bd…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 7/10 | 123905ms |
| 158 | `ce864f41…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 73903ms |
| 159 | `58ac1cc5…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ✅ success | - | 5 | 7/10 | 89775ms |
| 160 | `3c19c6d1…` | Professional, Scientif | Project Management | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 134097ms |
| 161 | `a99d85fc…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 198516ms |
| 162 | `55ddb773…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 59667ms |
| 163 | `1e5a1d7f…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 32552ms |
| 164 | `0419f1c3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 62832ms |
| 165 | `ed2bc14c…` | Real Estate and Rental | Property, Real Est | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 61617ms |
| 166 | `46bc7238…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | Yes | 9 | 9/10 | 125085ms |
| 167 | `2d06bc0a…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 41376ms |
| 168 | `fd3ad420…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 50892ms |
| 169 | `0818571f…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 6 | 4/10 | 158560ms |
| 170 | `6074bba3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Broker | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 77781ms |
| 171 | `5ad0c554…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 7/10 | 143399ms |
| 172 | `11593a50…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 4 | 2/10 | 102148ms |
| 173 | `94925f49…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 5 | 4/10 | 107438ms |
| 174 | `90f37ff3…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 3 | 5/10 | 71944ms |
| 175 | `d3d255b2…` | Real Estate and Rental | Real Estate Sales  | ✅ success | - | 3 | 9/10 | 43151ms |
| 176 | `403b9234…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 8/10 | 85623ms |
| 177 | `1bff4551…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 50200ms |
| 178 | `650adcb1…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 52414ms |
| 179 | `01d7e53e…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 9/10 | 162467ms |
| 180 | `a73fbc98…` | Government | Recreation Workers | ✅ success | - | 5 | 5/10 | 124873ms |
| 181 | `0ec25916…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 42865ms |
| 182 | `116e791e…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 2 | 9/10 | 41365ms |
| 183 | `dd724c67…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 1 | 5/10 | 91916ms |
| 184 | `7151c60a…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 2 | 5/10 | 47693ms |
| 185 | `90edba97…` | Health Care and Social | Registered Nurses | ✅ success | - | 2 | 2/10 | 74058ms |
| 186 | `91060ff0…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 5 | 8/10 | 122171ms |
| 187 | `8384083a…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 40232ms |
| 188 | `045aba2e…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 6 | 7/10 | 71567ms |
| 189 | `f2986c1f…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 1 | 2/10 | 23189ms |
| 190 | `ffed32d8…` | Retail Trade | Pharmacists | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 56708ms |
| 191 | `b3573f20…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 32411ms |
| 192 | `a69be28f…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | Yes | 3 | 7/10 | 108814ms |
| 193 | `788d2bc6…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 116038ms |
| 194 | `74ed1dc7…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 56629ms |
| 195 | `69a8ef86…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Managers | ✅ success | - | 2 | 7/10 | 90970ms |
| 196 | `ab81b076…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 4 | 9/10 | 98796ms |
| 197 | `d7cfae6f…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 76111ms |
| 198 | `19403010…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 6/10 | 65604ms |
| 199 | `7ed932dd…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | Yes | 2 | 4/10 | 56858ms |
| 200 | `105f8ad0…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 2 | 3/10 | 116016ms |
| 201 | `b57efde3…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 3/10 | 38339ms |
| 202 | `15d37511…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 64187ms |
| 203 | `bb863dd9…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 1 | 6/10 | 35479ms |
| 204 | `fe0d3941…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ✅ success | - | 3 | 7/10 | 57199ms |
| 205 | `6a900a40…` | Wholesale Trade | Sales Representati | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 60715ms |
| 206 | `9efbcd35…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 1 | 4/10 | 84668ms |
| 207 | `1d4672c8…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 4 | 3/10 | 130120ms |
| 208 | `4de6a529…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 87311ms |
| 209 | `4c4dc603…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 2 | 4/10 | 67619ms |
| 210 | `bb499d9c…` | Finance and Insurance | Securities, Commod | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 176260ms |
| 211 | `5349dd7b…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 2/10 | 64809ms |
| 212 | `a4a9195c…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 1 | 9/10 | 51166ms |
| 213 | `552b7dd0…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 5 | 6/10 | 92694ms |
| 214 | `11dcc268…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | Yes | 1 | 3/10 | 30157ms |
| 215 | `76418a2c…` | Manufacturing | Shipping, Receivin | ✅ success | - | 3 | 6/10 | 42685ms |
| 216 | `0e386e32…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 4 | 6/10 | 130531ms |
| 217 | `7de33b48…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 77819ms |
| 218 | `854f3814…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 48900ms |
| 219 | `4122f866…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ❌ error | Yes | 0 | - | 146170ms |
| 220 | `2c249e0f…` | Professional, Scientif | Software Developer | ✅ success | - | 2 | 6/10 | 146357ms |

## QA Issues

### ❌ `83d10b06…` — score 4/10
- Required sheet name should be 'Sample', not 'Selected sample'.
- Target entities and A1/C1 criteria were not sampled.
- Q2/Q3 variance appears reversed from requested columns H and I.
  > 💡 Rename the sample tab and revise selection logic to satisfy all mandatory criteria.

### ✅ `7b08cd4d…` — score 5/10
- P&L summary lacks source-split columns and combined totals for expenses.
- Expense categories and net income are not visible in the summary preview.
- Source Details sheet appears incomplete with blank rows and unclear production company data.
  > 💡 Add full expense and net income sections with Tour Manager, Production Company, and combined columns.

### ✅ `7d7fc9a7…` — score 6/10
- Header omits company name in supporting tabs.
- No evidence figures reconcile to all monthly GL balances.
- Text response promises actions instead of confirming completion.
  > 💡 Confirm completed reconciliation to each month and add company/reporting headers on all tabs.

### ✅ `43dc9778…` — score 6/10
- Text promises conditional forms instead of completed required return.
- Required e-file forms may be missing or unsupported by file preview.
- Output includes extra files not requested by original task.
  > 💡 Provide a fully completed 2024 1040 PDF with all required supported e-file schedules and forms.

### ❌ `ee09d943…` — score 4/10
- Workbook includes outdated March sheet names and dates.
- TOC shows duplicate tab number 5 entries.
- Several schedules were merely carried forward without April updates.
  > 💡 Update all tab names, dates, and schedules to April and verify TOC numbering consistency.

### ❌ `f84ea6ac…` — score 4/10
- File preview shows only paragraphs, not the required comparison table.
- Actual five article details and findings are not visible.
- Output admits curated summaries instead of verified online research.
  > 💡 Provide a one-page table with five verifiable post-2020 public academic articles and full required fields.

### ✅ `a328feea…` — score 9/10
- Text response promises creation rather than summarizing completed deliverable.
- File preview is truncated, limiting full content verification.
  > 💡 Replace the text response with a concise summary of the completed policy contents.

### ✅ `27e8912c…` — score 7/10
- PDF source citation shows placeholder text instead of a working NIH link.
- Public-domain image sourcing and attribution are not evident.
- Extra source DOCX was produced outside requested deliverables.
  > 💡 Replace placeholder citations with full source links and document image sources clearly.

### ✅ `17111c03…` — score 9/10
- Text response describes deliverables instead of presenting memo content.
- Excel preview is truncated, so exact schedule fidelity is unverified.
  > 💡 Ensure the response includes the completed memo text and verify the Excel exactly matches the reference schedule.

### ✅ `c44e9b62…` — score 5/10
- Briefing note shows inconsistent baseline FTE totals.
- Output preview lacks evidence of highlighted chart reductions.
- Response omits specific reduction details and calculations.
  > 💡 Verify totals across all files and explicitly show each planned reduction.

### ✅ `99ac6944…` — score 6/10
- PDF preview shows truncated/broken retailer links and formatting errors.
- No evidence the PDF embeds the required spreadsheet PNG on the last page.
- Content preview lacks full wiring chart and complete cost breakdown verification.
  > 💡 Verify embedded assets, fix PDF formatting, and ensure all required details are visibly present.

### ✅ `f9a1c16c…` — score 6/10
- PDF has visible text corruption near Vox2 IEM split label.
- Output numbering violates counterclockwise wedge numbering requirement.
- Bass wedge label omits required title wording next to wedge.
  > 💡 Fix label corruption and ensure wedge numbering and titles exactly match the spec.

### ✅ `38889c3b…` — score 6/10
- Requested 24-bit float WAVs were not delivered; files are 32-bit float.
- No evidence confirms the ZIP contains all required files.
- Audio content requirements cannot be verified from the provided file previews.
  > 💡 Deliver the exact requested export spec and verify ZIP contents and musical compliance explicitly.

### ✅ `ff85ee58…` — score 5/10
- No evidence the sax was correctly resynced to the reference mix.
- Report claims impossible sax placement at 0.0 seconds.
- Peak spec is misstated as LUFS instead of true peak/dBFS.
  > 💡 Verify actual sax alignment against the reference and report correct peak compliance terminology.

### ✅ `4b894ae3…` — score 7/10
- Added an unrequested report file beyond required deliverables.
- Report mentions acoustic guitar timecode logic unrelated to the task.
- Final mix loudness appears lower than rough mix reference.
  > 💡 Deliver only the required WAV and match bass level more closely to the rough mix.

### ✅ `1b1ade2d…` — score 7/10
- Text response promises files but omits workflow summary details.
- Output lacks explicit first-level workflow structure in the response.
- No evidence the DOCX/PDF fully capture approval matrices and change-routing rules.
  > 💡 Include a concise workflow summary and explicitly map approvals, change triggers, and digital platform steps.

### ✅ `93b336f3…` — score 7/10
- Original task requested calculations details, but preview omits visible calculation breakdown.
- Text response says CPO, but original task text is truncated as Chief Procur.
- Partnership ownership split appears introduced without support from the task.
  > 💡 Ensure the document explicitly shows all INR calculations and avoids unsupported assumptions.

### ✅ `15ddd28d…` — score 7/10
- Text response promises files instead of summarizing delivered strategy.
- Original task asked to outline a preferred path, but response is incomplete.
- No evidence the PDF content was verified against the DOCX.
  > 💡 Provide a concise executive summary of the strategy and confirm both files contain the full document.

### ❌ `24d1e93f…` — score 4/10
- NPV values are blank on the Summary sheet.
- Workbook uses placeholder assumptions instead of attached source data.
- Recommendation is generic and no supplier is actually nominated.
  > 💡 Populate actual quote and volume data, calculate NPVs, and name the recommended supplier.

### ✅ `05389f78…` — score 6/10
- Report uses assumptions because quote data was not fully extracted.
- Extra XLSX and PNG files were produced beyond requested deliverables.
- Email content was not previewed, so requirement coverage is unverified.
  > 💡 Extract exact quote figures and ensure both DOCX deliverables fully satisfy all stated requirements.

### ✅ `575f8679…` — score 9/10
- Text response promises creation rather than summarizing completed deliverable.
- Extra logic model file was produced though not explicitly required.
  > 💡 Revise the text response to confirm completed contents and key evaluation elements.

### ✅ `a74ead3b…` — score 5/10
- Manual content was not followed closely due to inaccessible source materials.
- No evidence sessions include required specific key points from Sessions 13 and 14.
- Text response promises creation but does not summarize completed slide content.
  > 💡 Verify each deck against the manual and summarize slide topics explicitly in the response.

### ✅ `bbe0a93b…` — score 6/10
- Resource guide used offline list, not an open web search.
- Spanish form has untranslated header 'Questions Related to Areas of Need'.
- Preview does not confirm resource guide contact details and category completeness.
  > 💡 Verify the resource guide from live Kent County sources and fully localize Spanish labels.

### ❌ `85d95ce5…` — score 4/10
- School placeholder was not used; actual school name appears.
- Required first-page fields were not left blank.
- Date of evaluation appears unfilled or inconsistent.
  > 💡 Revise the report to match template field requirements and placeholder instructions exactly.

### ✅ `76d10872…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises actions instead of summarizing completed deliverable.
- Report content preview appears generic and may omit required case-specific fields.
- No evidence the PDF fully matches the Case Creation Guide template.
  > 💡 Include a concise completion summary and verify all guide-required fields are explicitly populated.

### ❌ `36d567ba…` — score 4/10
- Preview shows only six paragraphs, not the full question set.
- Cannot verify all 11 topics and required citations are included.
- Text response promises content instead of summarizing delivered results.
  > 💡 Provide the full questionnaire preview and ensure all required topic questions appear in the DOCX.

### ✅ `7bbfcfe9…` — score 9/10
- Text response describes intent, not completed workbook contents.
- File preview is truncated, limiting full verification of SCRA-18.
  > 💡 State the workbook was completed and include a brief row count summary.

### ✅ `2696757c…` — score 6/10
- Header uses hyphen instead of required en dash nomenclature.
- An extra DOCX was produced despite requesting a single PDF document.
- Test questions appear generalized and may not track cited paragraphs precisely.
  > 💡 Provide only the PDF and align wording exactly to the cited handbook provisions.

### ✅ `4c18ebae…` — score 5/10
- Text promises deliverables but omits actual investigative findings and SAR narrative.
- Workbook dates conflict with stated account closure and opening timeline.
- Unexpected PNG file produced without request or explained purpose.
  > 💡 Include the completed SAR findings in the response and ensure file contents align with case facts.

### ✅ `cebf301e…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes intent, not the actual design content delivered.
- Original requirements appear truncated, so full requirement coverage is unverifiable.
- No evidence the DOCX fully specifies in-browser PDF export details.
  > 💡 Align the summary with delivered content and explicitly map every requirement to document sections.

### ✅ `c2e8f271…` — score 9/10
- Text response claims code generation and validation, but none is shown.
- No evidence the document is within the six-page limit.
  > 💡 Include a brief summary of key sections and confirm the final page count.

### ✅ `2ea2e5b5…` — score 6/10
- No evidence Excel data was actually used or summarized accurately.
- Strategic level mapping appears incomplete in the original task context.
- Output promises analysis but provides no verified results or insights.
  > 💡 Include validated totals and classifications from the source workbook in the presentation and response.

### ✅ `c357f0e2…` — score 7/10
- Workbook columns do not match the template header names.
- Text response promises notes and tested date, but preview shows unnamed headers.
- Cannot verify all required roles and modules are fully covered from preview alone.
  > 💡 Use exact template headers and confirm complete role-module coverage in the workbook.

### ✅ `a45bc83b…` — score 6/10
- Cloud Armor is incorrectly described as providing Layer 3 and Layer 4 protection.
- Data flow order places Cloud Armor before DNS resolution.
- Preview shows truncated or incomplete service mapping text.
  > 💡 Correct service claims, fix request flow ordering, and verify documents for completeness.

### ❌ `a10ec48c…` — score 4/10
- Document includes research notes and placeholders instead of verified final content.
- Source verification from Downtown Sarasota and Google Maps was not completed.
- Preview shows headings only, not the required populated tables.
  > 💡 Complete live research, remove placeholders, and populate all required tables with verified restaurant data.

### ✅ `fccaa4a1…` — score 7/10
- Text response promises a placeholder image, conflicting with royalty-free sourcing requirement.
- Age requirement listed as 2-14 conflicts with the 16-year-old guest.
- Take Walks details appear paraphrased, not clearly sourced from the specified page.
  > 💡 Ensure sourced operator details, correct age applicability, and no placeholder-image caveat.

### ✅ `f5d428fd…` — score 6/10
- Text response admits placeholders instead of actual royalty-free photos.
- Online research sourcing is not evidenced beyond generic source notes.
- Destination descriptions may be incomplete in the truncated preview.
  > 💡 Include actual licensed photos with citations and explicit researched source references in the PDF.

### ✅ `2fa8e956…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises work instead of summarizing completed deliverable.
- Source citations and Google Maps attribution are not evident in preview.
- Photo appears illustrative; royalty-free source credit is not shown.
  > 💡 Add visible source citations, image credit, and a concise completion summary in the response.

### ✅ `0e4fe8cd…` — score 6/10
- Workbook uses incorrect column headers instead of structured field names.
- Task details appear incomplete and some itinerary specifics may be missing.
- Several links/providers are fallback notes, not fully researched entities.
  > 💡 Use proper tabular headers and complete all requested verified itinerary details.

### ✅ `a0ef404e…` — score 9/10
- Text response promises creation rather than summarizing completed deliverables.
- Workflow image was extra and not requested explicitly.
  > 💡 State completed deliverables clearly and ensure the guide fully covers all listed steps.

### ✅ `b7a5912e…` — score 7/10
- Text response promises analysis but provides no actual findings.
- Workbook preview shows an unexplained blank vehicle category in charts.
- Observations section is not visible in the provided file preview.
  > 💡 Include explicit observations in the response and remove blank chart categories.

### ❌ `aa071045…` — score 4/10
- Excel summary contains blank highest-charge case details.
- Revenue tables include blank categories causing incorrect totals.
- Operational conclusions are not evidenced in the preview.
  > 💡 Fix blank source rows and complete the summary with clear conclusions.

### ✅ `476db143…` — score 5/10
- Schedule preview shows headers only, with no resident rows visible.
- Email is generic and not addressed to specific residents.
- Text response promises creation but doesn't confirm completed deliverables.
  > 💡 Ensure the schedule PDF includes all resident entries and personalize resident notices if required.

### ❌ `61f546a8…` — score 4/10
- Report says no make-ready changes, but Section 2 shows changed dates.
- M17 hot water tank installation date is missing.
- M24 appliance installation incorrectly assigned to our staff, not vendor.
  > 💡 Reconcile make-ready statuses and add correct vendor installation scheduling for appliances.

### ✅ `f3351922…` — score 7/10
- Text response describes deliverables instead of providing the email content.
- Benefits for transitioning service members appear incomplete in the preview.
- No evidence of web-researched references or source support.
  > 💡 Return the full client-ready email in the text response and ensure transition benefits are fully covered.

### ✅ `61717508…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises deliverables instead of summarizing completed work.
- Escalation guidance references an internal policy not requested by the task.
- Preview does not confirm three fictional account scenarios' content details.
  > 💡 Summarize completed PDFs and ensure all required scenario details are clearly evidenced.

### ✅ `0ed38524…` — score 8/10
- Text response promises chart, but summary PDF content is unverified.
- An extra PNG file was produced beyond requested deliverables.
- Source Excel usage cannot be confirmed from provided evidence.
  > 💡 Ensure both PDFs clearly reflect the Excel data and omit unnecessary extra files.

### ✅ `87da214f…` — score 6/10
- No evidence attached documents were actually analyzed.
- Text response promises work instead of summarizing findings.
- Required financial amounts and percentages are not shown in response.
  > 💡 Include concrete findings from the files and verify the deck contains every required slide element.

### ✅ `d025a41c…` — score 9/10
- Text response describes intent instead of summarizing completed analysis.
- File preview is truncated, limiting full content verification.
  > 💡 Include a concise completion summary in the text response and ensure full file content is reviewable.

### ✅ `401a07f1…` — score 8/10
- Text response describes intent instead of summarizing completed deliverable.
- Source list appears to omit Science despite task requiring it.
- File preview is truncated, so full compliance cannot be verified.
  > 💡 Provide a direct completion summary and ensure all specified outlets, including Science, are cited.

### ✅ `afe56d05…` — score 9/10
- Text response describes intent rather than summarizing completed deliverable.
- File preview is truncated, limiting full verification of all sections and links.
  > 💡 Include a brief completion summary in the text response and verify all hyperlinks work.

### ✅ `9a8c8e28…` — score 7/10
- Text response only promises files, not completed deliverables.
- Guide may overstate Public Sector Regulations applicability to private publishers.
- Preview does not confirm quiz answer key and scoring guide.
  > 💡 State completion clearly and verify all required quiz and legal details are explicitly included.

### ✅ `3a4c347c…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes intent, not completed deliverable details.
- File preview shows key sections but omits visible budget and schedule specifics.
- No evidence all story ideas, contributors, and KPIs are fully included.
  > 💡 Provide a fuller preview or verification of all required sections and concrete details.

### ✅ `ec2fccc9…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes intent instead of delivering the article content.
- Secondary keywords are not shown after the article in preview.
- Word count appears below the required minimum range.
  > 💡 Provide the full article content in the response and verify all required elements visibly appear in the DOCX.

### ✅ `8c8fc328…` — score 9/10
- Text response promises delivery rather than summarizing completed work.
- File preview is truncated, limiting full content verification.
  > 💡 Provide a brief completion summary highlighting runtime, timestamps, and key sections delivered.

### ❌ `c94452e4…` — score 4/10
- MP4 uses animatic graphics, not required stock footage clips.
- Music sourcing and inclusion are placeholders, not actual selected tracks.
- Output adds a PDF plan instead of fully delivering requested final spot.
  > 💡 Provide a true 15-second final cut using sourced stock footage, actual music, and the supplied supers.

### ❌ `75401f7c…` — score 2/10
- Final required MP4 showreel was not produced.
- Output omits the required closing logo_2.mp4 in shown plan.
- Only planning documents were delivered, not the edited video.
  > 💡 Deliver the actual 1920x1080 H.264 MP4 reel with required clip order and audio cues.

### ✅ `a941b6d8…` — score 5/10
- QC PNG stills were promised but not produced.
- Overlay timing appears inconsistent with the requested six-second performance selection.
- Exact source codec matching was not achieved.
  > 💡 Provide the missing QC PNGs and verify timing and codec compliance.

### ❌ `8079e27d…` — score 2/10
- Workbook has 480 rows, not all 500 S&P companies.
- Company names and tickers are synthetic, not real S&P 500 data.
- Extra PNG file is irrelevant and suggests placeholder output.
  > 💡 Provide a real 500-company Excel using public web data with accurate sector and valuation fields.

### ✅ `e21cd746…` — score 7/10
- Roadie is not a private target after UPS acquired it.
- Some valuation and customer fields appear undisclosed or incomplete.
- No evidence the PPTX contains fully working editable slides.
  > 💡 Verify target status and complete all requested data fields with sourced, current figures.

### ✅ `9e8607e7…` — score 9/10
- Text response says no external data, reducing credibility for market overview.
- PDF preview shows minor text rendering/formatting artifacts.
- PPTX content quality cannot be fully verified from preview alone.
  > 💡 Cite reputable sources and fix formatting artifacts to strengthen client-readiness.

### ✅ `c7d83f01…` — score 7/10
- No evidence notebook content is clean, documented, and comprehensive.
- Monte Carlo methodology appears limited to LSMC without broader comparison.
- Production recommendation is claimed, but report content is unverified.
  > 💡 Verify notebook and report contents explicitly satisfy all task requirements and analyses.

### ✅ `46b34f78…` — score 6/10
- Text promises a memo but provides no substantive analysis content.
- Supporting data uses illustrative assumptions, not clearly public source-backed data.
- Reference file inspection failed, risking incomplete use of attached materials.
  > 💡 Include the memo’s actual analysis and cite accessible public data sources explicitly.

### ✅ `a1963a68…` — score 7/10
- Text response describes deliverable creation, not the actual strategy content.
- PDF evidence shown is truncated, limiting verification of research depth and recommendations.
- No explicit confirmation of cited KTSA and taxi association sources.
  > 💡 Include a concise summary of key recommendations and named sources in the text response.

### ❌ `5f6c57dd…` — score 2/10
- Key worksheets show blank data instead of completed Excel models.
- Output preview suggests formulas and calculations are missing.
- Text claims functionality not evidenced in workbook content.
  > 💡 Populate all tabs with working formulas, rankings, and dropdown-driven calculations before delivery.

### ✅ `b78fd844…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises deliverables instead of summarizing actual analysis.
- Report relies on directional ranges without enough quantitative support.
- Reference file details are only briefly incorporated and may omit key assumptions.
  > 💡 Include a concise analytical summary in the text response with clearer project-specific NPV and IRR direction.

### ✅ `4520f882…` — score 7/10
- CBA excerpt content is not evidenced or traceable in formulas.
- Rate table uses placeholder values instead of verified contract rates.
- Validation coverage may miss many CBA conflicts beyond listed examples.
  > 💡 Include explicit CBA-based formulas, verified rates, and a mapping sheet citing each contract rule.

### ❌ `ec591973…` — score 4/10
- Text promises a slide but does not present the actual strategy content.
- PPTX content cannot be verified from the provided preview.
- No evidence all required channel tactics and challenges were addressed.
  > 💡 Include the actual slide content or verifiable PPTX details covering all required strategy elements.

### ✅ `62f04c2f…` — score 7/10
- Text response describes files instead of presenting substantive content.
- Excel form lacks a dedicated name field for signature approvals.
- Excel form includes extra processing notes column not requested.
  > 💡 Provide the actual document content in the response and align the form exactly to requested fields.

### ❌ `3f821c2d…` — score 4/10
- Omni season turn is 3.81, below the required 4.0 target.
- Workbook preview shows no side-by-side LY comparison tables.
- Assumptions indicate August BOM may default from LY, risking benchmark misalignment.
  > 💡 Revise receipts and inventory flow to achieve 4.0+ turn and include explicit LY tables.

### ❌ `e996036e…` — score 4/10
- Annual shipments use $255,000, not the required $225,000.
- Output references 2026 instead of Year 1.
- Text response promises workbook creation instead of summarizing completed analysis.
  > 💡 Correct assumptions, verify totals, and provide a completed executive summary tied to the workbook.

### ✅ `327fbc21…` — score 5/10
- Week weighting is reversed versus required May peak in Week 1.
- Total Stores percent to LY conflicts with summary and comp logic.
- No evidence notes/anomalies were incorporated into store plans.
  > 💡 Rework weekly allocation and rollups to match required week mix and comparable-store targets.

### ✅ `6dcae3f5…` — score 5/10
- Output added an unrequested Word document deliverable.
- Response admits using built-in requirements instead of the specified linked document.
- Preview shows no benchmark or requirement-attainment sheets confirmed.
  > 💡 Produce only the required Excel file with explicit benchmark and requirement-attainment worksheets.

### ✅ `1aecc095…` — score 8/10
- Extra PNG file was produced beyond requested deliverables.
- Text response promises creation instead of confirming completed deliverables.
- Reference materials usage is asserted but not evidenced.
  > 💡 Confirm completed files, remove extras, and explicitly cite source-based workflow details.

### ❌ `0353ee0c…` — score 2/10
- PDF is a template, not the requested exhaustive compiled guide.
- Required website information was not reviewed and consolidated.
- Document contains placeholder validation language instead of final content.
  > 💡 Complete the PDF with verified exhaustive presumptive criteria from all 19 links.

### ✅ `40a8c4b1…` — score 5/10
- No evidence optional unused topics were highlighted yellow.
- Chief Talks note appears pasted into Topic instead of scheduled cleanly.
- Cannot verify required scheduling priorities and February In-Service placement.
  > 💡 Validate workbook formatting and required topic placement against the source documents.

### ❌ `4d1a8410…` — score 3/10
- Itineraries lack personalized schedules for Allen and Isabelle.
- Schedule preview omits detailed room timings, breaks, lunch, and names.
- Response promises logos and avatar photos without confirming required content.
  > 💡 Include complete timed tables and true one-page personalized itineraries matching all schedule constraints.

### ✅ `8c823e32…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes deliverable instead of providing the policy content.
- Header elements were requested but not confirmed in the response.
- PDF readiness cannot be verified from the limited preview.
  > 💡 Provide the full policy text in the response and ensure all required header fields appear clearly.

### ✅ `eb54f575…` — score 7/10
- Text response describes intent, not the actual report contents.
- No evidence the DOCX was required by the task.
- Preview is truncated, limiting full content verification.
  > 💡 Provide a complete substantive summary in the response and ensure all required report details are verifiable.

### ✅ `11e1b169…` — score 7/10
- Text response promises creation instead of confirming completed deliverables.
- PDF content was not previewed, so file content compliance is unverified.
- Guide may exceed two pages; page count is not confirmed.
  > 💡 Confirm completed files, verify the PDF directly, and ensure the guide is exactly two pages.

### ✅ `22c0809b…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises deliverable but omits substantive form details.
- Preview does not show all required identifying fields explicitly present.
- DOCX is provided, but PDF content was not verified here.
  > 💡 Include a fuller response summary and verify every required field is clearly visible in the PDF.

### ❌ `bf68f2ad…` — score 4/10
- Text response promises files instead of providing the requested summary.
- Plan uses week 7 four-day schedule without proving five-day transition or buffer need.
- Workbook appears to ignore provided capacity data and relies only on demand values.
  > 💡 Provide the actual manager-ready summary and a data-grounded week-by-week transition plan.

### ✅ `efca245f…` — score 5/10
- Added an unrequested Word summary file.
- Scenario 3 uses 170/day, conflicting with stated 135/day upgrade.
- Workbook lacks clear evidence all open POs catch up by May 1.
  > 💡 Provide only the Excel workbook and align all scenario capacities strictly to the task assumptions.

### ✅ `9e39df84…` — score 6/10
- Average Output and Total Output cells appear blank, not automatically calculated.
- Dashboard uses static tables, not actual PivotTables.
- Week selection lists are visible, but range-driven interactivity is unclear.
  > 💡 Add working formulas and real PivotTables linked to validated week selectors.

### ✅ `68d8d901…` — score 7/10
- Reference filenames cited incorrectly versus provided task documents.
- Work Schedule uses 40 employees daily, not clearly reconciling 20 personnel setup.
- No evidence full-batch calculations prove 250,000-pound target feasibility.
  > 💡 Align source references, clarify staffing basis, and add explicit batch-capacity math.

### ✅ `1752cb53…` — score 6/10
- Extra summary file was produced beyond the required workbook.
- Workbook content validity against source references is not fully demonstrated.
- Text response promises actions instead of confirming completed results.
  > 💡 Submit only the completed workbook and confirm all populated cells match the provided rules and references.

### ✅ `bd72994f…` — score 5/10
- Presentation uses concept placeholders instead of official collection looks.
- Response promised DOCX and PDF, but also produced an unexplained ODG file.
- Deck admits no website access, weakening task compliance.
  > 💡 Use official 2025 resort collection imagery and details from the brand website only.

### ✅ `211d0093…` — score 6/10
- Task list source Word document was not actually referenced or verified.
- Manager sign-off appears per task, not only at the end.
- Output includes unnecessary DOCX beyond requested PDF deliverable.
  > 💡 Verify tasks against the source document and place the only manager sign-off at the end.

### ✅ `d4525420…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises future work instead of giving the requested paragraph.
- An unrequested Excel summary file was produced.
- DOCX includes extra summary lines beyond the requested 5-7 sentences.
  > 💡 Provide the actual 5-7 sentence recommendation directly and keep deliverables limited to requested content.

### ✅ `45c6237b…` — score 7/10
- Final summary table slide is not shown in the PDF preview.
- Hat and shirt assortment slides list items but do not show merchandise images.
- Text response promises PPTX output though task requested PDF only.
  > 💡 Add visible item images and a final PO summary table, and keep output scope to PDF.

### ✅ `cecac8f9…` — score 5/10
- Preparation plan PDF content was not previewed, so completion is unverified.
- Promotional offers are not clearly extracted or specified in the deck.
- UK store deliverables use dollar currency, which appears inconsistent.
  > 💡 Verify the preparation plan content and align all targets and offer details to UK source materials.

### ✅ `0fad6023…` — score 6/10
- Visual Layout preview shows blank pan contents instead of linked descriptions.
- No clear evidence formulas calculate used, remaining, and status fields.
- Visual case does not truly show variable pan widths proportionally.
  > 💡 Link layout cells to entry data and verify visible formulas and proportional pan-width display.

### ✅ `02314fc6…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes files instead of delivering checklist details.
- PDF preview shows truncated labels and unclear field text.
- Checklist item descriptions are not evident in the preview.
  > 💡 Provide explicit checklist content with readable item descriptions and fully rendered labels in the PDF.

### ✅ `4d61a19a…` — score 9/10
- Excel preview shows generic blank column headers.
- Workbook protection status is not verified from preview.
  > 💡 Confirm locked non-store fields and editable store fields function correctly in the live files.

### ✅ `6436ff9e…` — score 9/10
- File preview is truncated, limiting full content verification.
- Text response describes intent more than completed deliverable.
  > 💡 Ensure the response confirms key completed sections and final document readiness.

### ✅ `40a99a31…` — score 7/10
- Text response lacks specific hardware models and justification details.
- Required minimum six cameras is implied, not clearly documented in response.
- Extra DOCX file produced though not requested.
  > 💡 Include explicit selected models, quantities, costs, and confirm every required deliverable element in the response.

### ❌ `b9665ca1…` — score 3/10
- PDF content appears empty or unverifiable at only 1.5 KB.
- Text response promises work but does not confirm required wiring details.
- Extra SVG file is irrelevant, while schematic content cannot be validated.
  > 💡 Provide a readable PDF schematic showing all specified relay pins, wire labels, and safety connections.

### ✅ `c6269101…` — score 5/10
- No evidence capability thresholds were applied or explicitly referenced.
- Output text promises deliverables but omits actual findings and recommendations.
- Workbook preview suggests possible data inconsistency in Effective Error Rate values.
  > 💡 Include explicit capability criteria, key conclusions, and verify all calculated fields for accuracy.

### ✅ `be830ca0…` — score 6/10
- A3 summary presence and required sections are not evidenced.
- PPT content cannot confirm charter, timeline, and tollgate status completeness.
- Added Excel workbook was not requested and may distract from deliverables.
  > 💡 Verify the PowerPoint includes every required slide section and clearly labeled analyses.

### ✅ `cd9efc18…` — score 7/10
- Text response promises creation but doesn't present the drafted will content.
- PDF content was not previewed, so final file compliance is unverified.
- Execution date conflicts with original April 2023 drafting context.
  > 💡 Provide the full drafted will text and verify the PDF matches all requested Texas-specific provisions.

### ❌ `a97369c7…` — score 4/10
- Text response only promises a memo, not the requested legal analysis.
- Memo date is March 31, 2026, not contemporaneous to the task.
- Potential SB 313 analysis may be incomplete or legally uncertain.
  > 💡 Provide the full legal analysis in the response and ensure the memo squarely addresses all requested authorities.

### ✅ `3f625cb2…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises a memo but omits substantive legal analysis.
- Preview shows no clear case law summary section.
- PDF page-limit compliance is not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Provide a substantive summary in the response and verify the PDF is under three pages.

### ✅ `aad21e4c…` — score 7/10
- Text response promises files but omits substantive summary of key agreement terms.
- Separate Excel file was not requested and may be unnecessary.
- Preview does not confirm bylaws ROFR restrictions are integrated or addressed.
  > 💡 Ensure the response summarizes compliance and the agreement expressly addresses existing transfer restrictions.

### ✅ `8314d1b1…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises work but omits substantive memo content.
- File preview truncation prevents confirming citations and full statutory analysis.
- Word count compliance under 3,500 words is not verified.
  > 💡 Provide the full memo text or verifiable file details, including citations and word count.

### ❌ `5e2b6aab…` — score 4/10
- STEP files are placeholder text, not usable manufacturable CAD models.
- Required subassembly and assembly drawings may lack verified ANSI B details.
- Output adds an unrequested DOCX and omits concrete design concept specifics.
  > 💡 Provide real STEP solids and fully compliant PDF assembly drawings with a clear concept description.

### ❌ `46fc494e…` — score 3/10
- Text response gives no calculated temperatures or pass/fail conclusion.
- Model results appear physically inconsistent with many nodes identical early on.
- Back-face summary table and margins are not evidenced in previewed content.
  > 💡 Include explicit computed results, validated methodology, and a clear back-face limit assessment in the report.

### ✅ `3940b7e7…` — score 5/10
- Report uses draft estimates instead of confirmed CFD values.
- Required tables and key metrics are incomplete or unclear.
- Output text promises work rather than summarizing completed deliverables.
  > 💡 Provide verified numerical results from the source CFD data and fully populate all required sections and tables.

### ✅ `5a2d70da…` — score 6/10
- Master tool list has 8 columns, but task-required tax totals may be unclear.
- Text response promises creation, not actual summarized results or budget figures.
- No evidence purchase links, pricing accuracy, or complete tooling sufficiency were verified.
  > 💡 Include explicit budget totals, tooling details, and verified links directly in the response.

### ✅ `74d6e8b0…` — score 7/10
- Research sources were not live-verified as requested.
- Text response promises a Word file instead of summarizing completed work.
- Citations may be general rather than specific supporting literature.
  > 💡 Verify cited sources directly and clearly summarize the completed guideline contents in the response.

### ❌ `81db15ff…` — score 2/10
- Workbook contains placeholders instead of required state-specific findings.
- No collective recommendation was actually provided.
- Text response admits research was not completed.
  > 💡 Complete the spreadsheet with verified state rules and add a clear overall hiring recommendation.

### ✅ `61b0946a…` — score 6/10
- Output is a proposal summary, not the requested completed deliverable content.
- Cost analysis references an attached budget not provided in the task.
- Original task appears truncated, so some requirements may be unmet.
  > 💡 Provide the full requested proposal content and explicitly tie every assumption to supplied source data.

### ❌ `61e7b9c6…` — score 4/10
- Spreadsheet omits estimated monthly prices for all listed medications.
- Workbook uses generic sheet names instead of the provided template structure.
- Methodology admits prices were not obtained from online pharmacies.
  > 💡 Populate all price fields from online pharmacy sources and match the template exactly.

### ✅ `c9bf9801…` — score 7/10
- Guide preview lacks visible appendix references to linked templates.
- Eligibility, matching, and monthly timeline details aren't confirmed in preview.
- Text response promises deliverables instead of summarizing completed work.
  > 💡 Verify all required sections and appendix links are explicitly present in the guide.

### ❌ `f1be6436…` — score 3/10
- Uses placeholder screenshots instead of live source captures.
- Offline estimates replace required real-time registration and travel pricing.
- Task required complete booking details, but lodging and sourcing are incomplete.
  > 💡 Use live web data, real screenshots, and complete all cost calculations in the document.

### ✅ `41f6ef59…` — score 9/10
- Spreadsheet includes an extra Notes column not requested.
- Email template contains placeholder clinic fields requiring manual replacement.
  > 💡 Remove the extra column and prefill clinic details if available.

### ✅ `a0552909…` — score 7/10
- Only one email template preview is shown; others remain unverified.
- Excel preview doesn't confirm logo insertion or dropdown validation.
- Task requested separate Excel sheets, but output provides separate workbooks.
  > 💡 Verify all files' contents, especially logos, validations, and whether workbook format matches requirements.

### ❌ `6d2c8e55…` — score 3/10
- Article PDFs are placeholders, not actual peer-reviewed accessible articles.
- Email draft was required ready-to-send, not placeholder-based materials.
- Output admits incomplete web research and article retrieval requirements.
  > 💡 Provide verified open-access article PDFs or link PDFs and finalize the email accordingly.

### ✅ `4b98ccce…` — score 6/10
- Workbook content and signed lines were not verified from preview.
- Deceased letter content was not shown for inspection.
- General letter date field appears incomplete as '2025' only.
  > 💡 Provide full file previews, especially workbook sheets and deceased letter, to confirm compliance.

### ✅ `60221cd0…` — score 9/10
- Text response describes work instead of presenting the article.
  > 💡 Return the finished article text directly and keep file delivery unchanged.

### ✅ `ef8719da…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises a file instead of providing the pitch directly.
- Background section appears truncated or incomplete in the preview.
- Hyperlinks and source balance are not clearly verifiable from preview.
  > 💡 Provide the full pitch directly and ensure all required sections and links are explicitly included.

### ✅ `3baa0009…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes deliverables instead of providing the requested article.
- Article omits specific US and China forecast figures.
- Chart content values are not verified from the preview.
  > 💡 Provide the full article in the response and include explicit forecast numbers with a verified chart.

### ❌ `5d0feb24…` — score 4/10
- Output promises files instead of providing substantive editorial feedback.
- Companion spreadsheet was unnecessary and omitted requested in-text review format.
- Review may contain factual issues, including TRAPPIST-1 discovery timeline wording.
  > 💡 Provide the actual edited review with source-backed comments directly addressing the draft's content.

### ❌ `6974adea…` — score 4/10
- Text response promises work instead of presenting article completion.
- Extra source notes file was produced without being requested.
- Preview lacks evidence the .docx meets word count and formatting requirements.
  > 💡 Return the completed article content and ensure the Word file clearly satisfies all specified requirements.

### ✅ `1a78e076…` — score 7/10
- Text response promises work instead of summarizing completed deliverable.
- Optional PNG figures were added though not requested in the task.
- Preview does not confirm page count, reference count, or all required evidence sources.
  > 💡 Revise the response to summarize completed outputs and verify all required specifications explicitly.

### ✅ `1b9ec237…` — score 6/10
- PPTX content cannot be verified from the provided preview.
- Speaker notes presence is not confirmed.
- References formatting and slide count are unverified.
  > 💡 Open the presentation and verify all required slides, notes, and references are present.

### ❌ `0112fc9b…` — score 4/10
- Text response promises files instead of providing the SOAP note.
- Assessment and plan appear incomplete in the shown content.
- No clear urgent concussion escalation despite neurologic finding.
  > 💡 Provide the full SOAP note directly and include explicit concussion safety, imaging, and follow-up guidance.

### ✅ `772e7524…` — score 6/10
- Text response describes files instead of providing the SOAP note directly.
- Assessment section preview shows truncated placeholder-like content.
- Cannot confirm DOCX completeness from provided preview.
  > 💡 Provide the full SOAP note directly and ensure all file contents are complete.

### ✅ `e6429658…` — score 6/10
- Appeal letter appears as chart note, not formal insurer appeal format.
- Letter lacks clear insurance-specific appeal details and coverage request language.
- Application completion cannot be verified from provided preview.
  > 💡 Revise the letter into a formal medical necessity appeal and verify the filled PDF.

### ✅ `b5d2e6f1…` — score 7/10
- Sales by Store sheet preview is missing, so requirement completion is unverified.
- Data tab appears renamed but no pivot table presence is confirmed.
- Brand totals preview is truncated, limiting grand total verification.
  > 💡 Provide full workbook preview confirming both pivot tables, Sales by Store sheet, and grand totals.

### ✅ `f841ddcf…` — score 9/10
- No evidence tables are Excel filter tables.
- Preview truncates July-delay sheet verification.
- Some numeric fields appear unformatted decimals.
  > 💡 Format percentages/currency cleanly and confirm both summary ranges are actual filterable Excel tables.

### ✅ `47ef842d…` — score 9/10
- Text response promises work but omits key results summary.
- Summary includes an unnamed blank column.
- Chart presence is not verified from preview.
  > 💡 Include a concise results summary and remove the blank summary column.

### ✅ `1137e2bb…` — score 7/10
- Word summary leaves 'SKUs with Highest Error Frequency' section blank.
- No preview confirms SKU summary tab supports PO-level drill-down.
- Text response describes deliverables but omits actual findings summary.
  > 💡 Complete the missing SKU findings and verify the summary tab includes drill-down-ready PO detail.

### ✅ `c3525d4d…` — score 5/10
- Final store list tab includes removed stores, not just final locations.
- Production units are fractional instead of whole units.
- Workbook doesn't explicitly confirm stores 4099 and 3737 on comparison tab.
  > 💡 Limit the second tab to final stores only, round production units appropriately, and show key store checks.

### ✅ `9a0d8d36…` — score 6/10
- PPTX content was not previewed, so requirement coverage is unverified.
- No evidence the slides include step-by-step hypothetical calculations.
- PNG was extra and does not confirm required presentation content.
  > 💡 Review the PPTX slides directly to verify all required tax comparisons and calculations are present.

### ✅ `664a42e5…` — score 6/10
- PPT content cannot be verified from the provided preview.
- 2025 gift tax exclusion amount is mentioned but not confirmed in slides.
- No evidence the side-by-side comparison appears within the presentation.
  > 💡 Provide slide-level content preview to verify all required topics and visuals are included.

### ✅ `feb5eefc…` — score 9/10
- Text response promises a PDF rather than summarizing completed analysis.
- No explicit confirmation the PDF stays within 12 pages.
- Scenario examples are only implied in the response, not described.
  > 💡 Reference the completed PDF contents directly and confirm page count compliance.

### ✅ `3600de06…` — score 6/10
- PPTX content cannot be verified from the provided preview.
- Source-based FINRA and NAIC coverage is not evidenced.
- Actual 10-slide requirement is unconfirmed.
  > 💡 Provide slide-by-slide content or export to PDF for verification.

### ✅ `c657103b…` — score 6/10
- Presentation content and template usage were not verified from preview.
- Spreadsheet starts at period 0, but row count suggests missing full 2054 horizon.
- Tax assumptions appear oversimplified with flat conversion tax rate.
  > 💡 Verify slide requirements and extend or correct the model timeline and tax logic.

### ❌ `ae0c1093…` — score 3/10
- PDFs contain placeholder conversion text instead of full deliverable content.
- Observation form lacks headers with three solid note lines.
- Guide is missing required sections beyond the purpose statement.
  > 💡 Create complete PDFs with the full guide content and a properly structured handwritten observation form.

### ✅ `f9f82549…` — score 5/10
- PDF text appears corrupted and hard to read.
- Required separate PowerPoint per flowchart header is not evidenced.
- Text response promises deliverables instead of summarizing completed work.
  > 💡 Provide readable final files and confirm each flowchart header has its own detailed slide deck section.

### ✅ `57b2cdf2…` — score 5/10
- Surveillance section is present but empty.
- Actual start time conflicts with requested 7:30 p.m. courtesy start.
- Report includes speculative phrasing like apparent book club location.
  > 💡 Populate the Surveillance timeline fully and align all times and wording with verified observations.

### ✅ `84322284…` — score 7/10
- Text response promises PDF but primary report was also delivered as DOCX.
- No direct evidence confirms all required source notes were fully analyzed.
- Extra PNG file appears unnecessary and not requested.
  > 💡 Ensure the response summarizes completed findings and aligns exactly with requested deliverables.

### ✅ `a46d5cd2…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises work instead of summarizing completed deliverables.
- Required company letterhead use is not clearly evidenced in preview.
- Working copy PDF appears redundant and not requested.
  > 💡 State completed results clearly and ensure the final PDF visibly uses the provided letterhead.

### ✅ `6241e678…` — score 5/10
- Task list appears truncated with incomplete client graphics item.
- Edit revision rounds and full schedule details are not evidenced.
- Text response promises files but omits actual schedule specifics.
  > 💡 Verify all required tasks, especially client graphics and edit rounds, are fully included and visible.

### ✅ `e14e32ba…` — score 5/10
- Internet research requirement was not fulfilled due to no live verification.
- Photos are placeholders, not actual establishment images.
- Video links use search pages, not specific prior feature segments.
  > 💡 Provide verified web research with real photos, exact hours, and direct media feature links.

### ✅ `e4f664ea…` — score 6/10
- Screenplay PDF is only 6 pages, below the required 8–12 pages.
- Output promises 10 scenes, but file preview does not verify scene count.
- Extra reference PDF was added though not requested in the task.
  > 💡 Ensure the screenplay itself fully meets page, scene, and formatting requirements before adding extras.

### ✅ `a079d38f…` — score 7/10
- Workbook includes pre-production despite task requesting production-only without post-production.
- Cost breakdown accuracy cannot be verified because service rates sheet preview is truncated.
- Estimate may underjustify two shoot days for nine short videos.
  > 💡 Align scope strictly to production-only and show clear rate-based calculations for each line item.

### ❌ `02aa1805…` — score 2/10
- Workbook contains placeholder data instead of Illinois EPA well assessment data.
- Potential wells tab is empty, so no viable wells were identified.
- Email gives no actual recommendations or highlighted top options.
  > 💡 Populate the workbook with real Illinois EPA well data and provide specific recommended wells.

### ✅ `fd6129bd…` — score 7/10
- Text response promises files but omits delivered SOP and form content details.
- Extra PNG file was produced though not requested.
- Preview is truncated, preventing full verification of completeness.
  > 💡 Provide concise content summaries and only the specifically requested deliverables.

### ✅ `ce864f41…` — score 9/10
- Department targets seem misapplied; all listed departments are under 95%.
- Summary says all five departments are at risk without explicit overutilization check.
  > 💡 Ensure department analysis explicitly compares each department against the 95%-105% target range.

### ✅ `58ac1cc5…` — score 7/10
- QA escalation email was delivered as DOCX, not an email-ready output.
- File previews show unresolved placeholders like batch and product fields.
- No evidence the change control form was actually completed from the blank form.
  > 💡 Populate source-specific fields and provide all deliverables in the exact requested formats.

### ✅ `a99d85fc…` — score 7/10
- Workbook preview omits formulas, formatting, and reconciliation proof.
- Notes section is not visible in the provided workbook preview.
- Text response promises creation but does not summarize delivered results.
  > 💡 Include visible evidence of formulas, notes, formatting, and matching totals in the workbook preview.

### ❌ `55ddb773…` — score 3/10
- Form omits attached PDF's exact violation types and qualifying details.
- Output admits OCR fallback and possible missing items.
- Preview shows formatting errors and placeholder-like instructional text.
  > 💡 Rebuild the PDF from the source document exactly and verify every required line item.

### ❌ `1e5a1d7f…` — score 4/10
- File preview shows only paragraphs, not the required task table.
- Attached PM duties were referenced but not evidenced in content.
- Text response promises deliverable details not visible in file preview.
  > 💡 Ensure the .docx contains the full four-column weekly schedule table populated from PM duties.

### ✅ `0419f1c3…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises creation but omits actual analysis and recommendations.
- Acknowledgement-time KPI is not clearly quantified from the work order log.
- Complaint themes section appears truncated in the document preview.
  > 💡 Include explicit training justifications and all required KPIs directly in the response and document.

### ✅ `ed2bc14c…` — score 7/10
- Text response promises files instead of summarizing completed analysis and recommendations.
- An extra PNG file was produced though not requested.
- Document preview shows a typo in sheet name: 'Suvery Comments'.
  > 💡 Provide a direct professional summary and ensure only requested files with accurate references are included.

### ✅ `46bc7238…` — score 9/10
- Text response promises creation instead of confirming completion.
- Free stock photo sourcing is not explicitly documented.
- PDF preview truncation limits full content verification.
  > 💡 Confirm completion in the text response and cite stock photo sources within the PDF.

### ✅ `2d06bc0a…` — score 9/10
- Text response claims creation without confirming completed delivery.
- Cap-rate pricing basis is stated approximately, not explicitly supported.
- Preview truncation prevents full verification of expiration and non-binding terms.
  > 💡 Ensure the response confirms completion and key LOI terms explicitly, including expiration and non-binding language.

### ✅ `fd3ad420…` — score 9/10
- Text response promises creation rather than summarizing completed deliverables.
- PDF preview summary appears truncated in the provided inspection excerpt.
  > 💡 Revise the text response to confirm completion and ensure the PDF summary is fully visible.

### ❌ `0818571f…` — score 4/10
- Listings are offline samples, not active June 2025 public listings.
- Required property photos and area maps are not verified in preview.
- Investor criteria alignment from attached PDF is not demonstrated.
  > 💡 Use live Crexi/LoopNet listings and clearly evidence every required item per property.

### ✅ `6074bba3…` — score 6/10
- PDF content was not verified from the preview provided.
- Graphs appear as placeholder text in the DOCX preview.
- Comparable property details are missing from the previewed report.
  > 💡 Verify the PDF and ensure embedded charts and full comp tables appear in the final report.

### ✅ `5ad0c554…` — score 7/10
- Text response promises creation instead of confirming completed brochure details.
- PDF preview appears truncated, suggesting possible incomplete content review.
- No evidence brochure explicitly maps items from the 132 Things resource.
  > 💡 Confirm completed content and explicitly cite relevant 132 Things items by milestone.

### ❌ `11593a50…` — score 2/10
- Shortlist PDF is 1 page, not the required 2 pages.
- PDF previews show no property table, photos, or required listing fields.
- Map PDF is an approximation, not a true pinned property map.
  > 💡 Rebuild both PDFs with complete listing details, photos, and an actual geocoded pin map.

### ❌ `94925f49…` — score 4/10
- Reports use offline research instead of required reputable online sources.
- Home listings include obvious formatting/data errors like malformed prices.
- School metrics appear approximate or unpublished, weakening quantitative reliability.
  > 💡 Verify all PDFs with current cited web sources and clean listing data formatting.

### ✅ `90f37ff3…` — score 5/10
- Comparable survey is illustrative, not data-driven from public sources.
- Preview omits comp addresses and asking rents required.
- Report references disabled internet, weakening professional credibility.
  > 💡 Use verified local comps with addresses, dates, and asking rents, then update the recommendation.

### ✅ `d3d255b2…` — score 9/10
- Text response says PDF only, but DOCX was also produced.
- Market analysis source attachment is not clearly evidenced in preview.
  > 💡 Ensure the report explicitly references the attached market analysis by name and key data.

### ✅ `403b9234…` — score 8/10
- PPTX content cannot be verified from the provided preview.
- Text response promises validation but provides no evidence.
- Extra chart file was produced though not explicitly requested.
  > 💡 Provide slide titles or a content summary to verify all required presentation elements.

### ✅ `1bff4551…` — score 5/10
- Collection representation was not researched or verified as requested.
- YouTube links are search queries, not direct song links.
- Set list runtime is only 32 minutes, short of 45-minute performance.
  > 💡 Verify collection matches and direct links, and expand repertoire to better fill 45 minutes.

### ✅ `650adcb1…` — score 6/10
- No sixth tab for interns' time off requests is shown.
- Coverage gaps with fewer than two interns are not clearly noted.
- Preview shows truncated/incorrect April cell content.
  > 💡 Add the time-off requests sheet and explicitly flag all undercovered dates.

### ✅ `01d7e53e…` — score 9/10
- Text response promises a Word draft without summarizing key completed terms.
- One referenced source file was corrupted, risking omitted provisions.
  > 💡 Add a concise completion summary confirming all required clauses and exhibits are included.

### ✅ `a73fbc98…` — score 5/10
- Original layout files were not included or clearly updated.
- Spreadsheet preview shows only 7 columns; source data may be incomplete.
- Report preview contains repeated table numbers, suggesting assignment errors.
  > 💡 Include updated original layouts and verify spreadsheet completeness and unique table assignments.

### ✅ `0ec25916…` — score 7/10
- PDF is two pages, not the required one page.
- Source references are not visibly included or attributable.
- Top handover section appears incomplete and awkwardly formatted.
  > 💡 Condense the layout to one page and clean the header fields and references.

### ✅ `116e791e…` — score 9/10
- Text response says PDF creation, but also produced an unnecessary DOCX file.
- File preview is truncated, limiting full verification of all diagnoses and interventions.
  > 💡 Submit only the required PDF and ensure all required elements are fully visible for review.

### ✅ `dd724c67…` — score 5/10
- Facility list is incomplete and includes duplicate hospital entries.
- Facilities sheet has extra blank and notes columns cluttering required data.
- TFU guide appears generic and may not list all condition-specific timeframes.
  > 💡 Validate all Long Island facilities, remove duplicates, and align TFU details exactly to CMS PY 2025.

### ✅ `7151c60a…` — score 5/10
- File previews omit required sender and recipient fax fields.
- Checklist content preview lacks required table items and staff-only fields.
- Logo attachment use is not evidenced; text header appears instead.
  > 💡 Verify both DOCX files include all required fields, table content, page numbers, and actual logo.

### ❌ `90edba97…` — score 2/10
- Workbook lacks required monthly lab values and MRNs.
- Output adds an unrequested summary document.
- Entries contain placeholders instead of protocol-based medication changes.
  > 💡 Populate the provided workbook fully from source labs and document only required monthly interventions.

### ✅ `91060ff0…` — score 8/10
- Text response promises creation rather than confirming completed content.
- Poster preview shows truncated text, suggesting possible layout overcrowding.
- References are mentioned but not clearly verified in the preview.
  > 💡 Confirm final poster readability and explicitly include visible references on the PDF.

### ✅ `8384083a…` — score 6/10
- Only one NDC/package per product is listed, not all commonly audited versions.
- Guide includes an internal training note placeholder-like disclaimer.
- Text response promises creation but omits delivered content summary.
  > 💡 Include all common audited NDCs and package sizes for each medication with finalized wording.

### ✅ `045aba2e…` — score 7/10
- Response admits no source access, weakening California-specific compliance reliability.
- Deliverables omit the requested detailed internal compliance checklist methodology.
- Extra DOCX files were produced beyond the three requested PDFs.
  > 💡 Verify all checklist items directly against cited California sources and submit only the three PDFs.

### ❌ `f2986c1f…` — score 2/10
- Medications were not identified using Drugs.com as required.
- Spreadsheet contains placeholders and unknowns instead of completed medication details.
- MedlinePlus counseling links are missing for all listed items.
  > 💡 Identify each pill from the image and complete all required fields with verified links.

### ✅ `ffed32d8…` — score 6/10
- Main report exceeds requested one to two pages.
- An extra ODS file was produced beyond requested deliverables.
- Text response promises a differently named PDF than produced.
  > 💡 Provide one final two-page PDF only and ensure filenames match the response exactly.

### ✅ `a69be28f…` — score 7/10
- No actual analysis findings are stated in the text response.
- Output summary promises deliverables without confirming key regional top fits.
- File content preview is truncated, limiting verification of presentation completeness.
  > 💡 Include explicit top-fit results by region and gender in the response.

### ✅ `788d2bc6…` — score 6/10
- Slide 2 contains obvious garbled text and formatting corruption.
- Content preview shows repeated/overlapping lines reducing professionalism.
- Open-source image sourcing and SERVICESV5 alignment are not evidenced.
  > 💡 Fix corrupted text, verify all slides visually, and document source/content compliance.

### ✅ `74ed1dc7…` — score 9/10
- Text response describes deliverable instead of summarizing key recommendations.
- File preview is truncated, limiting full content verification.
  > 💡 Include a brief recommendation summary in the text response and ensure full file validation.

### ✅ `69a8ef86…` — score 7/10
- Text response promises creation but omits substantive process details.
- File preview does not confirm external guidelines content.
- Acronyms KAR and SPS are not clearly incorporated.
  > 💡 Include a concise summary of both documents' key requirements and referenced acronyms.

### ✅ `ab81b076…` — score 9/10
- Text response promises deliverables instead of summarizing completed work.
- PDF preview shows duplicated numbering format like '1. 1.'.
  > 💡 Revise the response to confirm completion and clean minor formatting inconsistencies.

### ✅ `d7cfae6f…` — score 6/10
- Projection period wording conflicts between Q1 2023 and Q1 2024.
- Extra Source_Check tab was not requested.
- Some percent cells appear as raw decimals, not formatted percentages.
  > 💡 Align all period labels to Q1 2024 and keep the workbook limited to requested recap content.

### ✅ `19403010…` — score 6/10
- Workbook is not one page recap only; extra support tab included.
- Values are unformatted raw decimals instead of presentation-ready currency and percentages.
- Text response promises audit tab, exceeding the requested one-sheet deliverable.
  > 💡 Provide a single-sheet formatted recap workbook with rounded currency and percentage displays only.

### ❌ `7ed932dd…` — score 4/10
- Text response promises work but omits actual results and calculations.
- Workbook uses a single 80 cases-per-pallet assumption despite a conversion tab.
- Required highlighting cannot be verified from the provided preview.
  > 💡 Include computed results in the response and use SKU-specific pallet conversions from the reference file.

### ❌ `105f8ad0…` — score 3/10
- Used proxy competitor data instead of required September 2025 online MSRP research.
- Text admits limitation, so benchmark validity does not meet task requirements.
- Output promises files but does not confirm attached SKU list was actually used.
  > 💡 Redo with verified September 2025 competitor MSRPs from approved channels and cite sources in the workbook.

### ❌ `b57efde3…` — score 3/10
- Workbook is a template, not a completed prospecting list.
- Official exhibitor list was not reviewed as required.
- Spreadsheet lacks company-specific leads and connection details.
  > 💡 Complete the workbook using the official exhibitor list with verified target companies and notes.

### ❌ `15d37511…` — score 4/10
- Total Year 1 Gross Margin value is missing.
- Spreadsheet omits required revenue projection figures.
- Assumptions mention fallback pricing, undermining data reliability.
  > 💡 Add the missing total, include revenue calculations, and use verified pricing from the reference email.

### ✅ `bb863dd9…` — score 6/10
- WHO documentation link appears missing or not shown as a URL.
- Quoted module list and quantities cannot be verified from preview.
- Article numbers, prices, shelf life, and lead times are not evidenced.
  > 💡 Ensure the workbook visibly includes all requested module lines and complete quoted fields.

### ✅ `fe0d3941…` — score 7/10
- Text response promises files but doesn't confirm completed content details.
- Survey sample size for over a hundred people is not addressed.
- PPTX content cannot be verified from the provided preview.
  > 💡 Confirm the PPT slides meet all requested elements and address survey distribution scope.

### ❌ `9efbcd35…` — score 4/10
- Document admits no live MSCI/news verification through March 31, 2025.
- Required source-based performance details appear synthesized rather than evidenced.
- Client-ready deliverable contains a draft disclaimer undermining professionalism.
  > 💡 Use verified MSCI and cited March 31, 2025 sources, then remove draft caveats.

### ❌ `1d4672c8…` — score 3/10
- Analysis uses synthetic data instead of MSCI historical data.
- Correlation results are implausibly uniform at 0.99-1.00.
- Extra DOCX file suggests deliverable mismatch and placeholder workflow.
  > 💡 Use actual MSCI monthly closes for the specified period and regenerate the workbook and PDF.

### ❌ `4de6a529…` — score 4/10
- Output text promises creation instead of summarizing completed deliverable.
- Main asset classes appear mislabeled with regional equity items mixed in.
- Preview does not confirm all sub-asset classes and change markers were fully updated.
  > 💡 Provide a completed table matching the source taxonomy and summarize final views, not intentions.

### ❌ `4c4dc603…` — score 4/10
- Key economics contain illegible placeholders instead of actual fund data.
- Dividend strategy and team profiles appear missing or truncated.
- Output includes an unnecessary DOCX beyond requested PDF deliverable.
  > 💡 Populate all required sections with verified IM details and ensure the PDF is complete.

### ✅ `bb499d9c…` — score 6/10
- PDF delivered instead of requested Word document only.
- External research requirement was not completed or evidenced.
- Document appears brief at 9 pages versus requested detailed process.
  > 💡 Provide a fully detailed DOCX grounded in cited public best practices and ensure all requirements are evidenced.

### ❌ `5349dd7b…` — score 2/10
- Required web research and rate data are missing.
- Workbook contains placeholders instead of completed analysis.
- Recommendations by package size are not provided.
  > 💡 Complete the workbook with researched rates, calculations, and carrier recommendations for each size.

### ✅ `a4a9195c…` — score 9/10
- Text response describes deliverable instead of summarizing completed SOP.
- Reference choice may be imperfect for warehouse ESD control guidance.
  > 💡 Include a brief completion summary and verify the cited standard is the most appropriate ESD reference.

### ✅ `552b7dd0…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises work but provides no analysis results.
- PPT content cannot be verified from the provided preview.
- Required metrics and recommendations are not evidenced in the response.
  > 💡 Include key findings in the text and provide verifiable slide content details.

### ❌ `11dcc268…` — score 3/10
- Moved To locations are blank for all listed items.
- Report includes only three receipts, likely missing received items.
- Special partial receipt for P11-P09457-01 is not shown.
  > 💡 Populate all received items with assigned Moved To locations and include the P11-P09457-01 partial move.

### ✅ `76418a2c…` — score 6/10
- Manifest workbook lacks proper headers and appears misaligned.
- Only three shipments entered; source pick tickets may be incomplete.
- Status column remains Pending instead of finalized shipment processing.
  > 💡 Complete the manifest using all pick tickets and proper template formatting.

### ✅ `0e386e32…` — score 6/10
- Output promises code scaffold, but only documents and ZIP are directly listed.
- Original task is truncated, so full requirement coverage is unverified.
- No evidence the ZIP contains complete, non-placeholder implementation files.
  > 💡 List key ZIP contents explicitly and confirm all required components are fully implemented.

### ✅ `2c249e0f…` — score 6/10
- Text response promises files instead of presenting the requested deliverables directly.
- data_flow.txt preview is missing, so required content cannot be verified.
- Original task text appears truncated, risking incomplete data flow coverage.
  > 💡 Return the full YAML and data_flow.txt contents directly and ensure all required sections are verifiable.

## Failure Analysis

The run did not fail primarily by outright crashes; it failed by a large layer of partial compliance inside nominal successes. Across all 220 tasks, 211 completed, but many of those completions still had low QA because the model delivered plausible artifacts that missed exact spec details: wrong sheet names or missing formulas in spreadsheets (83d10b06-26d1-4636-a32c-23f92c57f30b, 24d1e93f-9018-45d4-b522-ad89dfd78079, 5f6c57dd-feb6-4e70-b152-4969d92d1608, 90edba97-74f0-425a-8ff6-8b93182eb7cb), placeholder or offline research instead of verified data (8079e27d-b6f3-4f75-a9b5-db27903c798d, 81db15ff-ceea-4f63-a1cd-06dc88114709, 5349dd7b-bf0a-4544-9a17-75b7013767e6), or media outputs that substituted plans for final assets (c94452e4-39cd-4846-b73a-ab75933d1ad7, 75401f7c-396d-406d-b08e-938874ad1045). The strongest sectors, especially Government and parts of Retail and Real Estate, tended to be bounded document-generation tasks, while lower-scoring work more often required exact data extraction, live research, executable code, or final rendered media.

Hard failures were concentrated in a few occupation clusters rather than spread evenly. Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services accounted for 4 of the 9 errors, driven mainly by Software Developers, where 3 of 5 tasks failed with deterministic syntax defects or bundle-generation issues (7de33b48-5163-4f50-b5f3-8deea8185e57, 854f3814-681c-4950-91ac-55b0db0e3781, 4122f866-01fa-400b-904d-fa171cdab7c7). Other execution failures were similarly brittle and code-specific: missing environment dependency for video editing in e222075d-5d62-4757-ae3c-e34b0846583b, a bad f-string/list lookup in b39a5aa7-cd1b-47ad-b249-90afd22f8f21, deprecated or unexpected dataframe behavior in 8077e700-2b31-402d-bd09-df4d33c39653, a hardcoded Excel sheet name in 3c19c6d1-672c-467a-8437-6fe21afb8eae, a parser that treated a header row as data in 6a900a40-8d2b-4064-a5b1-13a60bc173d8, and an overly rigid page-count assertion in b3573f20-5d3e-4954-948f-9461fda693d2. These are not reasoning shortfalls so much as brittle execution assumptions.

Retries improved completion but often did not improve fidelity. All 9 hard-failure tasks had already been retried and still failed, which shows the retry system currently helps with transient execution problems but not deterministic script defects. Even among recovered runs, several retried tasks remained low quality: ee09d943-5a11-430a-b7a2-971b4e9b01b5 still had outdated month-end content after retry, 85d95ce5-b20c-41e2-834e-e788ce9622b6 still violated template instructions, c94452e4-39cd-4846-b73a-ab75933d1ad7 took 587784 ms and still delivered an animatic instead of the required final spot, 75401f7c-396d-406d-b08e-938874ad1045 still omitted the final MP4, and 5f6c57dd-feb6-4e70-b152-4969d92d1608 still had blank model tabs after retry. By contrast, retries were effective when the underlying task was already structurally sound, as seen in 17111c03-aac7-45c2-857d-c06d8223d6ad, f841ddcf-2a28-4f6d-bac3-61b607219d3e, and 46bc7238-3501-4839-b989-e2bd47853676, all of which retried and still reached QA 9.

A pervasive cross-sector quality drag was deliverable hygiene rather than domain knowledge. Many tasks in nearly every sector used future-tense language such as I will create instead of confirming completed work, produced extra unrequested files, or admitted placeholders and unverifiable sourcing. That appears in otherwise strong sectors too: a328feea-47db-4856-b4be-2bdc63dd88fb, 17111c03-aac7-45c2-857d-c06d8223d6ad, 401a07f1-d57e-4bb0-889b-22de8c900f0e, 575f8679-b4c1-47a2-8e96-d570d4ed9269, and 8f9e8bcd-6102-40da-ab76-23f51d8b21fa all scored well but still carried response-format issues. Latency also did not buy quality: c94452e4-39cd-4846-b73a-ab75933d1ad7 consumed nearly 10 minutes for QA 4, while short bounded tasks such as a328feea-47db-4856-b4be-2bdc63dd88fb, dfb4e0cd-a0b7-454e-b943-0dd586c2764c, and 60221cd0-686e-4a08-985e-d9bb2fa18501 were fast and high quality. The main correlation is therefore not time but task type: exacting spreadsheet logic, live research, code generation, and rendered media are the main failure surfaces.

## Recommendations

First, harden the execution path for deterministic code and media jobs before generation is even attempted. Add a preflight that checks import availability, compiles the generated script, inspects workbook sheet names dynamically, and downgrades fatal assertions into repairable warnings. That would have prevented or auto-repaired the moviepy dependency miss in e222075d-5d62-4757-ae3c-e34b0846583b, the unterminated triple-quoted strings in 7de33b48-5163-4f50-b5f3-8deea8185e57, 854f3814-681c-4950-91ac-55b0db0e3781, and 4122f866-01fa-400b-904d-fa171cdab7c7, the hardcoded sheet lookup in 3c19c6d1-672c-467a-8437-6fe21afb8eae, the brittle quantity parser in 6a900a40-8d2b-4064-a5b1-13a60bc173d8, and the page-count assertion failure in b3573f20-5d3e-4954-948f-9461fda693d2. For code-heavy occupations, use a generate-compile-repair loop rather than a single generation pass.

Second, tighten prompt and post-processing controls around exact deliverable compliance. A large share of QA loss comes from near-miss artifacts rather than wrong overall intent, so the system should force a final completion ledger that lists exact filenames, required tabs/pages, whether any extra files were produced, and whether the response is describing finished work rather than intended work. That would directly target the recurring future-tense pattern and overproduction seen in 43dc9778-450b-4b46-b77e-b6d82b202035, 62f04c2f-e0f7-4710-876c-54ee9c2e8256, 211d0093-2c64-4bd0-828c-0201f18924e7, ffed32d8-d192-4e3f-8cd4-eda5a730aec3, and many others. For spreadsheets, add mandatory checks for exact sheet names, nonblank formula regions, and populated key outputs; that would have caught 83d10b06-26d1-4636-a32c-23f92c57f30b, 24d1e93f-9018-45d4-b522-ad89dfd78079, 5f6c57dd-feb6-4e70-b152-4969d92d1608, 11dcc268-cb07-4d3a-a184-c6d7a19349bc, and 90edba97-74f0-425a-8ff6-8b93182eb7cb before they were marked successful.

Third, route tasks by evidence requirements instead of treating all document generation the same. Low-QA successes in health care, finance, real estate, and retail often stemmed from missing live web verification or synthetic stand-ins: 8079e27d-b6f3-4f75-a9b5-db27903c798d used synthetic S&P data, 81db15ff-ceea-4f63-a1cd-06dc88114709 left state-comparison placeholders, a10ec48c-168e-476c-8fe3-23b2a5f616ac and 94925f49-36bc-42da-b45b-61078d329300 relied on offline or approximate property/school research, and f2986c1f-2bbf-4b83-bc93-624a9d617f45 left medication identification incomplete. Those tasks should be handled with an explicit browser-backed retrieval/citation workflow, including source capture into the artifact. Likewise, rendered media tasks should go to an environment with verified video/audio libraries and artifact validators, because the current path routinely substitutes planning documents for finished assets in c94452e4-39cd-4846-b73a-ab75933d1ad7 and 75401f7c-396d-406d-b08e-938874ad1045.

Fourth, make retry policy conditional on failure class and raise QA gating for artifact-sensitive tasks. The current 47 retries preserved completion, but all 9 hard failures had already been retried and several retried successes still scored poorly, so blind reruns are wasting latency without addressing root causes. If the first run shows a syntax error, missing dependency, hardcoded schema mismatch, or deterministic validator failure, move to targeted repair rather than rerun. If the first run produces an artifact with placeholders, blank key cells, wrong bit depth, missing MP4, or extra unrequested files, treat that as a content-repair loop instead of success. This would especially help retried-but-still-weak tasks such as c94452e4-39cd-4846-b73a-ab75933d1ad7, 75401f7c-396d-406d-b08e-938874ad1045, ee09d943-5a11-430a-b7a2-971b4e9b01b5, and 5f6c57dd-feb6-4e70-b152-4969d92d1608, while preserving the good retry behavior already seen in 17111c03-aac7-45c2-857d-c06d8223d6ad and f841ddcf-2a28-4f6d-bac3-61b607219d3e.

## Deliverable Files

- `83d10b06…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `7b08cd4d…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `7d7fc9a7…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `43dc9778…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 4 file(s)
- `ee09d943…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `f84ea6ac…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a328feea…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `27e8912c…` (Government): 6 file(s)
- `17111c03…` (Government): 3 file(s)
- `c44e9b62…` (Government): 3 file(s)
- `99ac6944…` (Information): 7 file(s)
- `f9a1c16c…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `38889c3b…` (Information): 7 file(s)
- `ff85ee58…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `4b894ae3…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `1b1ade2d…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `93b336f3…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `15ddd28d…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `24d1e93f…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `05389f78…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `575f8679…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `a74ead3b…` (Government): 4 file(s)
- `bbe0a93b…` (Government): 3 file(s)
- `85d95ce5…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `76d10872…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `36d567ba…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `7bbfcfe9…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `2696757c…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `dfb4e0cd…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `4c18ebae…` (Government): 3 file(s)
- `cebf301e…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `c2e8f271…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `2ea2e5b5…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 5 file(s)
- `c357f0e2…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `a45bc83b…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 3 file(s)
- `a10ec48c…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `fccaa4a1…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `f5d428fd…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 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): 2 file(s)
- `b7a5912e…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `aa071045…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 4 file(s)
- `476db143…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 4 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): 5 file(s)
- `87da214f…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `d025a41c…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `401a07f1…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `afe56d05…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `9a8c8e28…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `3a4c347c…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `ec2fccc9…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `8c8fc328…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `c94452e4…` (Information): 4 file(s)
- `75401f7c…` (Information): 4 file(s)
- `a941b6d8…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `8079e27d…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `e21cd746…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 file(s)
- `9e8607e7…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `c7d83f01…` (Finance and Insurance): 7 file(s)
- `46b34f78…` (Finance and Insurance): 5 file(s)
- `a1963a68…` (Finance and Insurance): 5 file(s)
- `5f6c57dd…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `b78fd844…` (Finance and Insurance): 3 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): 2 file(s)
- `40a8c4b1…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `4d1a8410…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `8c823e32…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `eb54f575…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `11e1b169…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `a95a5829…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `22c0809b…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `bf68f2ad…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `efca245f…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `9e39df84…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `68d8d901…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `1752cb53…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `bd72994f…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `211d0093…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `d4525420…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `45c6237b…` (Retail Trade): 5 file(s)
- `cecac8f9…` (Retail Trade): 7 file(s)
- `8f9e8bcd…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `0fad6023…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `02314fc6…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `4d61a19a…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `6436ff9e…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `8a7b6fca…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `40a99a31…` (Manufacturing): 4 file(s)
- `b9665ca1…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `c6269101…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `be830ca0…` (Manufacturing): 9 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): 2 file(s)
- `8314d1b1…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 1 file(s)
- `5e2b6aab…` (Manufacturing): 10 file(s)
- `46fc494e…` (Manufacturing): 6 file(s)
- `3940b7e7…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `5a2d70da…` (Manufacturing): 2 file(s)
- `74d6e8b0…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `81db15ff…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `61b0946a…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `61e7b9c6…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `c9bf9801…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 6 file(s)
- `f1be6436…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 6 file(s)
- `41f6ef59…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `a0552909…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 7 file(s)
- `6d2c8e55…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 12 file(s)
- `4b98ccce…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 3 file(s)
- `60221cd0…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `ef8719da…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `3baa0009…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `5d0feb24…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `6974adea…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `1a78e076…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 4 file(s)
- `1b9ec237…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `0112fc9b…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `772e7524…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `e6429658…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `b5d2e6f1…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `f841ddcf…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `47ef842d…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `1137e2bb…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `c3525d4d…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `9a0d8d36…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `664a42e5…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `feb5eefc…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `3600de06…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `c657103b…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `ae0c1093…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `f9f82549…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `57b2cdf2…` (Retail Trade): 2 file(s)
- `84322284…` (Retail Trade): 4 file(s)
- `a46d5cd2…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `6241e678…` (Information): 6 file(s)
- `e14e32ba…` (Information): 6 file(s)
- `b1a79ce1…` (Information): 2 file(s)
- `e4f664ea…` (Information): 3 file(s)
- `a079d38f…` (Information): 1 file(s)
- `02aa1805…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `fd6129bd…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 3 file(s)
- `ce864f41…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
- `58ac1cc5…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 5 file(s)
- `a99d85fc…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `55ddb773…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 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): 3 file(s)
- `46bc7238…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 9 file(s)
- `2d06bc0a…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 1 file(s)
- `fd3ad420…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 2 file(s)
- `0818571f…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 6 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): 4 file(s)
- `94925f49…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 5 file(s)
- `90f37ff3…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `d3d255b2…` (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing): 3 file(s)
- `403b9234…` (Government): 2 file(s)
- `1bff4551…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `650adcb1…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `01d7e53e…` (Government): 1 file(s)
- `a73fbc98…` (Government): 5 file(s)
- `0ec25916…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `116e791e…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `dd724c67…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 1 file(s)
- `7151c60a…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `90edba97…` (Health Care and Social Assistance): 2 file(s)
- `91060ff0…` (Retail Trade): 5 file(s)
- `8384083a…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `045aba2e…` (Retail Trade): 6 file(s)
- `f2986c1f…` (Retail Trade): 1 file(s)
- `ffed32d8…` (Retail Trade): 3 file(s)
- `a69be28f…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `788d2bc6…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `74ed1dc7…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `69a8ef86…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `ab81b076…` (Wholesale Trade): 4 file(s)
- `d7cfae6f…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `19403010…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `7ed932dd…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `105f8ad0…` (Wholesale Trade): 2 file(s)
- `b57efde3…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `15d37511…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `bb863dd9…` (Wholesale Trade): 1 file(s)
- `fe0d3941…` (Wholesale Trade): 3 file(s)
- `9efbcd35…` (Finance and Insurance): 1 file(s)
- `1d4672c8…` (Finance and Insurance): 4 file(s)
- `4de6a529…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `4c4dc603…` (Finance and Insurance): 2 file(s)
- `bb499d9c…` (Finance and Insurance): 5 file(s)
- `5349dd7b…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `a4a9195c…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `552b7dd0…` (Manufacturing): 5 file(s)
- `11dcc268…` (Manufacturing): 1 file(s)
- `76418a2c…` (Manufacturing): 3 file(s)
- `0e386e32…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 4 file(s)
- `2c249e0f…` (Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services): 2 file(s)
