example_id string | benchmark_split string | difficulty string | product_scope string | task_family string | dataset_license string | annotation_status string | confidence float64 | meeting_context dict | agenda list | transcript list | reference_summary dict | reference_decisions list | reference_action_items list | reference_followup_package dict | open_questions list | rubric dict | pre_read_context dict | decision_tensions list | followup_risks list | quality_checks list | evidence_manifest dict | reference_variants list | negative_examples list | difficulty_rationale string | benchmark_slices list | adversarial_features list | expected_failure_modes list | review_readiness dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0300 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ethan Mo... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Brooks",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ethan Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable a... | {
"email_subject": "Juniper Relay client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Juniper Relay working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Juniper Relay working brief",
"Juniper Relay approval thread",
"Juniper Relay launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap ve... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0301 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Isla ... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Isla Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0302 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Jalen Broo... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"te... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next revie... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Jalen Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal l... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0303 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Isla Nguye... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Isla Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge Labs creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the ap... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge L... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Glowforge Labs working brief",
"Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"Glowforge Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0304 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": ... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Sofia Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe Chen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next re... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Sofia Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Sofia Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that l... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0305 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Liam Chen",
"role... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Morgan",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next re... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Liam Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Nora Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what... | {
"email_subject": "Juniper Relay retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the approver... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Juniper Relay working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Juniper Relay working brief",
"Juniper Relay approval thread",
"Juniper Relay launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap ve... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0306 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia Sh... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ag... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next revi... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof an... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what pr... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the approver ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0307 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ethan Morris... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while stil... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ethan Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wha... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North Labs retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the sour... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Tidal N... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Tidal North Labs working brief",
"Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"Tidal North Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0308 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Nora Kim",
"r... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Nora Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Walker",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next re... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Nora Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Juniper Relay creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that leg... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Juniper Relay working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Juniper Relay working brief",
"Juniper Relay approval thread",
"Juniper Relay launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap ve... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0309 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Brooks",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Jalen Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0310 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Isla Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"tex... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Zoe Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the so... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0311 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Nora Wal... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Nora Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Nora Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "Juniper Relay client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Juniper Relay working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Juniper Relay working brief",
"Juniper Relay approval thread",
"Juniper Relay launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap ve... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0312 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mi... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Patel",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Miles Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wh... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that two stake... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0313 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Jalen M... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe Brooks",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"te... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still maki... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Jalen Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wa... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverabl... | {
"email_subject": "Juniper Relay client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed t... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Juniper Relay working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Juniper Relay working brief",
"Juniper Relay approval thread",
"Juniper Relay launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap ve... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0314 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Zoe Mo... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Patel",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved whil... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Zoe Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0315 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Noah Dia... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Noah Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah Walker",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Noah Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Noah Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what p... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the source foo... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Har... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Lattice Harbor working brief",
"Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"Lattice Harbor launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0316 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Jalen Lopez",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Chen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Jalen Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Noah Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the appro... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0317 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia Shah",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Morgan",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next re... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof an... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what ... | {
"email_subject": "Juniper Relay retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the approver... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Juniper Relay working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Juniper Relay working brief",
"Juniper Relay approval thread",
"Juniper Relay launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap ve... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0318 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Zoe ... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe Patel",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while st... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Zoe Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the source... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0319 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Elijah ... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Elijah Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava Morgan",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"te... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while s... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Elijah Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Har... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Lattice Harbor working brief",
"Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"Lattice Harbor launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0320 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia Shah",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Walker",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0321 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Noah Lopez",
"r... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Noah Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review e... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Noah Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Noah Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wh... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal lan... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0322 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved wh... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ethan Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable an... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed tha... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Har... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Lattice Harbor working brief",
"Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"Lattice Harbor launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0323 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Jalen ... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Shah",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"tex... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved wh... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Jalen Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable ... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0324 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ethan Lopez",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ethan Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that two ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Cinder Atlas working brief",
"Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"Cinder Atlas launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0325 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia Walk... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Shah",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Nora Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Cinder Atlas working brief",
"Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"Cinder Atlas launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0326 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Sofia ... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Sofia Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Morgan",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Sofia Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wa... | [
{
"owner": "Sofia Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable ... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge Labs client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge L... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Glowforge Labs working brief",
"Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"Glowforge Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0327 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia Nguyen",... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while st... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the sour... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Cinder Atlas working brief",
"Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"Cinder Atlas launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0328 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ava Mor... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ava Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Mia Shah",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ag... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review eas... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ava Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wha... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal languag... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0329 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Nora... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Nora Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Ethan Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"te... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Nora Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North Labs campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Tidal N... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Tidal North Labs working brief",
"Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"Tidal North Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0330 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ethan Dia... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Ivy Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved wh... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ethan Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and ... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agree... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0331 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mi... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Chen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while stil... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Miles Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the sour... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Northbe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Northbeam Studio working brief",
"Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"Northbeam Studio launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0332 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Nora Kim",
"... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Nora Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next rev... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Nora Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0333 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ava B... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Ava Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Morgan",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"tex... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still maki... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ava Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agree... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Northbe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Northbeam Studio working brief",
"Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"Northbeam Studio launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0334 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Nora Patel",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Nora Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe Brooks",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while st... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Nora Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the sourc... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0335 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles Pat... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"te... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Miles Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "Orbit Thread campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Orbit Thread working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Orbit Thread working brief",
"Orbit Thread approval thread",
"Orbit Thread launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0336 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Noah Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved wh... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Noah Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Noah Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable a... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agree... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0337 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Liam Diaz",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making th... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Liam Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pr... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0338 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia Diaz",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Brooks",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next revi... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0339 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia Lo... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Diaz",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the nex... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0340 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name":... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Diaz",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved whil... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Isla Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pr... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North Labs creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Tidal N... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Tidal North Labs working brief",
"Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"Tidal North Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0341 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ivy Diaz",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ivy Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava Chen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved whil... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ivy Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "Orbit Thread creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Orbit Thread working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Orbit Thread working brief",
"Orbit Thread approval thread",
"Orbit Thread launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0342 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Lucas Chen",... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Lucas Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Lucas Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North Labs retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Tidal N... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Tidal North Labs working brief",
"Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"Tidal North Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0343 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia ... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Diaz",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed t... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0344 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ivy Broo... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Ivy Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Brooks",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"te... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the ne... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ivy Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Cinder Atlas working brief",
"Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"Cinder Atlas launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0345 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Zoe Brooks"... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the nex... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Zoe Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Noah Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the app... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0346 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Zoe Lopez",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Diaz",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next r... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Zoe Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wha... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the appr... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Northbe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Northbeam Studio working brief",
"Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"Northbeam Studio launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0347 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia Rivera... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Morgan",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review ea... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wh... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0348 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia Shah",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Ivy Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I agr... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review e... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what p... | {
"email_subject": "Juniper Relay retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal langu... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Juniper Relay working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Juniper Relay working brief",
"Juniper Relay approval thread",
"Juniper Relay launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap ve... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0349 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia Kim"... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Walker",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I a... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the n... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the app... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Har... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Lattice Harbor working brief",
"Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"Lattice Harbor launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0350 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Liam Chen",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava Morgan",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making t... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Liam Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Noah Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge Labs creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge L... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Glowforge Labs working brief",
"Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"Glowforge Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0351 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles Morgan",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next rev... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Miles Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wa... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "Orbit Thread vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal lan... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Orbit Thread working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Orbit Thread working brief",
"Orbit Thread approval thread",
"Orbit Thread launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0352 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Elijah Chen",... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Elijah Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Elijah Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0353 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia Chen",
"... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Ethan Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved wh... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0354 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name"... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Noah Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah Walker",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while s... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Noah Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Noah Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Velora Motion client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Velora Motion working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Velora Motion approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Velora Motion... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Velora Motion working brief",
"Velora Motion approval thread",
"Velora Motion launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap ve... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0355 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ivy Shah",
"... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ivy Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Patel",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while s... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ivy Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof an... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the sou... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0356 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Elija... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Elijah Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Ethan Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Elijah Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Nora Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what... | {
"email_subject": "Velora Motion retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the source f... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Velora Motion working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Velora Motion approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Velora Motion... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Velora Motion working brief",
"Velora Motion approval thread",
"Velora Motion launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap ve... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0357 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ethan Walk... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"te... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next revi... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ethan Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0358 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ethan Kim",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I a... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review easy... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ethan Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what pro... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal languag... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0359 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles Nguyen",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next r... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Miles Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what... | {
"email_subject": "Juniper Relay vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that two stakeholder... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Juniper Relay working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Juniper Relay working brief",
"Juniper Relay approval thread",
"Juniper Relay launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap ve... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0360 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia ... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Shah",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved whil... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pr... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the so... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0361 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Liam C... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah Brooks",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Liam Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that t... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0362 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Jalen Diaz",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Isla Patel",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Jalen Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wha... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the sourc... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0363 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Nora ... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Nora Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"te... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved wh... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Nora Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North Labs campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed t... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Tidal N... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Tidal North Labs working brief",
"Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"Tidal North Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0364 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Nora Lopez",
"ro... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Nora Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe Walker",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Nora Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Nora Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that leg... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0365 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "N... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Noah Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Chen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Noah Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Noah Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also ag... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0366 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name":... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Elijah Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still maki... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Elijah Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team w... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Noah Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable... | {
"email_subject": "Orbit Thread campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Orbit Thread working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Orbit Thread working brief",
"Orbit Thread approval thread",
"Orbit Thread launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0367 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ava Walker",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Ava Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ava Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wh... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the app... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Har... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Lattice Harbor working brief",
"Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"Lattice Harbor launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0368 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ivy Lop... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Ivy Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Ethan Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"tex... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ivy Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pr... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and ... | {
"email_subject": "Juniper Relay client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Juniper Relay working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Juniper Relay working brief",
"Juniper Relay approval thread",
"Juniper Relay launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap ve... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0369 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Zoe Wa... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Zoe Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Nora Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that l... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0370 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Noah... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Noah Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the nex... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Noah Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Noah Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that t... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0371 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Zoe Mo... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I a... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review eas... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Zoe Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what ... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North Labs vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal langua... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Tidal N... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Tidal North Labs working brief",
"Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"Tidal North Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0372 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia Kim",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I a... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while stil... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof an... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what pr... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the sourc... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0373 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Ivy Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Ethan Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"tex... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the nex... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ivy Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Har... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Lattice Harbor working brief",
"Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"Lattice Harbor launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0374 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Lucas Shah",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Lucas Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Diaz",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Lucas Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North Labs creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that lega... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Tidal N... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Tidal North Labs working brief",
"Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"Tidal North Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0375 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Isla Chen"... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Ethan Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Isla Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what pro... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that two st... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0376 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Liam Nguyen",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Chen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next r... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Liam Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wha... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that two stakehold... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0377 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia Chen",
"role": "cr... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while st... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Noah Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wh... | {
"email_subject": "Orbit Thread vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the source f... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Orbit Thread working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Orbit Thread working brief",
"Orbit Thread approval thread",
"Orbit Thread launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0378 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ethan Dia... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Shah",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next re... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ethan Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North Labs creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Tidal N... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Tidal North Labs working brief",
"Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"Tidal North Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0379 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mile... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Isla Shah",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Miles Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wh... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the approve... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0380 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Elijah Wal... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Elijah Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"tex... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved whil... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Elijah Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable a... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge Labs creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge L... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Glowforge Labs working brief",
"Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"Glowforge Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0381 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Elijah Lopez",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Elijah Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Mia Patel",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved w... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Elijah Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wa... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0382 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles Lopez",
"rol... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Ethan Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still m... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Miles Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wha... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the source fo... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Northbe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Northbeam Studio working brief",
"Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"Northbeam Studio launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0383 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name":... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Mia Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making t... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Zoe Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North Labs creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Tidal N... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Tidal North Labs working brief",
"Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"Tidal North Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0384 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"nam... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Noah Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah Morgan",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the ne... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Noah Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wan... | [
{
"owner": "Noah Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable a... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0385 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Nora Patel",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Nora Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Morgan",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next rev... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Nora Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0386 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ivy Walker",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Ivy Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Patel",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ivy Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Nora Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that two stakeholde... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0387 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ava Sh... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Ava Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I a... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next revi... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ava Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof an... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Noah Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what proof... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the approver ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0388 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Elija... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Elijah Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Ivy Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"t... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Elijah Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable an... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed t... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0389 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"na... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Chen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making th... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Liam Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pr... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North Labs client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed t... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Tidal N... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Tidal North Labs working brief",
"Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"Tidal North Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0390 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ava Ri... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ava Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while s... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ava Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Har... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Lattice Harbor working brief",
"Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"Lattice Harbor launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0391 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles Morris... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Ivy Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"tex... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved wh... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Miles Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and ... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed t... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Northbe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Northbeam Studio working brief",
"Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"Northbeam Studio launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0392 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ethan ... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved whi... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ethan Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wa... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and ... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the s... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Cinder Atlas working brief",
"Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"Cinder Atlas launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0393 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ava Rivera",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ava Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Isla Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ava Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Noah Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal la... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Northbe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Northbeam Studio working brief",
"Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"Northbeam Studio launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0394 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Sofia Kim",
"role... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Sofia Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Patel",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next revi... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Sofia Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Sofia Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what ... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the approver wants ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0395 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Isla Lopez",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Morgan",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"tex... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next revie... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Isla Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that le... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0396 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Liam Lopez",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe Shah",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Liam Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Noah Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North Labs retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that two ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Tidal N... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Tidal North Labs working brief",
"Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"Tidal North Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0397 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"nam... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Patel",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Isla Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pr... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0398 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Zoe R... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"tex... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the n... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Zoe Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North Labs campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that t... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Tidal N... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Tidal North Labs working brief",
"Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"Tidal North Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0399 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ethan Patel",... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the ne... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ethan Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the a... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.