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_0600 | 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": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"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": "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 approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Nora Morgan",
"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 Rivera",
"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 approver wants fewer review rounds 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": "Nora Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Morgan",
"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": "Noah Kim",
"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 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": "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_0601 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"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 approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia 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": "Elijah Patel",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"te... | {
"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": "Mia Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"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... | 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_0602 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Zoe 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": "Zoe 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 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava Walker",
"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": "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 retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Noah Nguyen",
"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 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 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": "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_0603 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles 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 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 client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Ivy Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"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": "Miles Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wan... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable ... | {
"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... | 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_0604 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"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": "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 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Shah",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I a... | {
"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": "Mia Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Brooks",
"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 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... | 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_0605 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"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": "Lucas Rivera",
"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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Lucas 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 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Brooks",
"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": "Lucas Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak 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 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": "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_0606 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"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 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 legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan 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 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Ethan 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 Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"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... | 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_0607 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ava 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 legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ava 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 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Chen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I a... | {
"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 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 r... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ava Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "Juniper Relay 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 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": "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_0608 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Isla 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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla 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 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava 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 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 re... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Isla Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Patel",
"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": "Ethan Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what... | {
"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 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": "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... | 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_0609 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ivy 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 the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Ivy 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 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Morris",
"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 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 Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy Morgan",
"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": "Miles Shah",
"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 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": "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_0610 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"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 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 legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam Brooks",
"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 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah 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": "Liam Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Brooks",
"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": "Sofia Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wha... | {
"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... | 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_0611 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Noah 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": "Noah Nguyen",
"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": "Isla 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": "Noah Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Noah Nguyen",
"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": "Elijah Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and ... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio 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": "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... | 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_0612 | train | easy | 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": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Lucas Nguy... | [
{
"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": "Lucas 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 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Patel",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"tex... | {
"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": "Lucas Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wa... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable a... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor 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": "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... | 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_0613 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Liam... | [
{
"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": "Liam 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 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora 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": "Liam Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor 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 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": "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... | 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_0614 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 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 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Ivy Chen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I a... | {
"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": "Jalen Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what ... | {
"email_subject": "Orbit Thread 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 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": "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 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": [
"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_0615 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"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 the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Elijah 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 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"te... | {
"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 Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and ... | {
"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... | 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_0616 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava Morris",
"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 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 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 Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Liam 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": "Miles Patel",
"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 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 two stakeholders... | [
"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... | 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_0617 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"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": "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 approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen Walker",
"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": "Ivy Morris",
"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 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": "Jalen Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wa... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Nora Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and ... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio 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 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": "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... | 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_0618 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ava 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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Ava 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 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Diaz",
"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 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": "Ava Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor 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 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": "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... | 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_0619 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"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": "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 legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Sofia Patel",
"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": "Ava Patel",
"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 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": "Sofia Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Sofia Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Nora Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media 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 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 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_0620 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles ... | [
{
"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 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 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava Morgan",
"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": "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 campaign planning brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Noah Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge 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 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": "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 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": [
"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_0621 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"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": "Nora 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": "Nora 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 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava Rivera",
"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 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": "Nora Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Chen",
"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": "Zoe Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what proo... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor 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 foot... | [
"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_0622 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"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": "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 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 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Patel",
"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": "Zoe Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Shah",
"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": "Nora Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works 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": "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_0623 | 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": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Noah 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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Noah 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 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Rivera",
"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 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": "Noah Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Noah Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Nora Patel",
"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 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 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": "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... | 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_0624 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"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": "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 approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen 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": "Elijah Walker",
"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 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 Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Patel",
"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": "Lucas Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North Labs 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 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": "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_0625 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Liam 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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam 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 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Shah",
"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 Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what ... | {
"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_0626 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"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": "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 retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ag... | {
"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": "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": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what p... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media 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 stakeh... | [
"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_0627 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"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": "Zoe 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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe 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 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah Walker",
"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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope 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 retrospective brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak 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 two sta... | [
"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... | 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_0628 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Elijah 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 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Shah",
"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 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": "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 campaign planning brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio 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": "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_0629 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Liam ... | [
{
"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": "Liam Chen",
"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": "Miles 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 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... | [
{
"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 client onboarding brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Lopez",
"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 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... | 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_0630 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia 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 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 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah Morgan",
"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": "Mia Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wh... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge Labs 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 approv... | [
"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... | 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_0631 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ivy 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": "Ivy Chen",
"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": "Isla 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 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": "Ivy Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy Chen",
"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": "Isla Patel",
"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 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": "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 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": [
"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_0632 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles Br... | [
{
"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 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 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Ivy Diaz",
"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 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": "Miles Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas 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 ... | [
"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_0633 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"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 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 the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla Rivera",
"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": "Elijah Patel",
"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": "Isla Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Rivera",
"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 Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"email_subject": "Velora Motion 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": "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 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": [
"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_0634 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"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": "Ava Ki... | [
{
"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 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 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe Morgan",
"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 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": "Ava Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof an... | [
{
"owner": "Ava 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": "Elijah Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media 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 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 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_0635 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Jalen 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": "Jalen Patel",
"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": "Ivy 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 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 Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Patel",
"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 Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable an... | {
"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_0636 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Lucas 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": "Lucas 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 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Morgan",
"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 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 teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Lucas Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wha... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media 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 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 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_0637 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"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": "Ivy 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": "Ivy 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 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I a... | {
"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": "Ivy Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy 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": "Mia Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wha... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor 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... | [
"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_0638 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"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 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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen 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 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe 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 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 Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wa... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Morgan",
"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": "Noah Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable ... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas 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": "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_0639 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ivy Diaz",
"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 legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ivy 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": "Sofia Patel",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I a... | {
"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": "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 vendor sync brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Diaz",
"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 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": "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... | 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_0640 | 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": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"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 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 legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam Brooks",
"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 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Lopez",
"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": "Liam Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wan... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"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_0641 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles 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 source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles 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 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Lopez",
"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": "Miles Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Noah Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what ... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works 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 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": "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_0642 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Liam ... | [
{
"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 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 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Lopez",
"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 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": "Liam Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Nora Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"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... | 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_0643 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Noah 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": "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 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Diaz",
"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": "Noah Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Noah 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": "Sofia Shah",
"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 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": "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_0644 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ivy 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": "Ivy 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 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Mia Brooks",
"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": "Ivy Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and ... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge Labs 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... | [
"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_0645 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"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 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": "Elijah 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": "Ethan Shah",
"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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope 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": "Elijah Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio 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": "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_0646 | 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": "Zo... | [
{
"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 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 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Kim",
"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 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": "Zoe Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio 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 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": "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_0647 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"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": "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 the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Patel",
"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": "Ivy Morgan",
"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 Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Patel",
"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": "Ivy Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what ... | {
"email_subject": "Juniper Relay 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 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": "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_0648 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": ... | [
{
"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 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 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Patel",
"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": "Elijah Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Nora Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative 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 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 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_0649 | train | medium | 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": "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 Patel",
"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": "Isla Nguyen",
"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 Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pr... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Patel",
"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": "Miles Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"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... | 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_0650 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"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": "Mia 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": "Mia 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 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles 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 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": "Mia Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wh... | {
"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 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": "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_0651 | 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": "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": "Miles Morgan",
"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": "Miles Chen",
"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": "Miles Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works 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 ... | [
"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... | 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_0652 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"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": "Jalen 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": "Jalen 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 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"tex... | {
"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 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 sti... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Jalen Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Nguyen",
"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": "Isla Morris",
"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 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 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 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... | 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_0653 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Elijah S... | [
{
"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 campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Chen",
"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": "Elijah Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"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_0654 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Nora 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": "Nora 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": "Ivy Morris",
"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 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": "Nora Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wan... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North 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 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": "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... | 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_0655 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Isla 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 the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla 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 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe Patel",
"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 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 lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Isla Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wan... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and ... | {
"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 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": "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... | 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_0656 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"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": "Liam 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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam 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 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Patel",
"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": "Liam Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Brooks",
"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 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 stakeholders... | [
"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 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": [
"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_0657 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Sofia 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 the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Sofia 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 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Diaz",
"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 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": "Sofia Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Sofia Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"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... | 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_0658 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Noah Riv... | [
{
"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 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 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Sofia Patel",
"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 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": "Noah Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Noah Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"email_subject": "Velora Motion 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 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": "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 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": [
"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... | 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_0659 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"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": "Luca... | [
{
"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 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 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"te... | {
"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 source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Lucas Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable ... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio 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 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... | 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_0660 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"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 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": "Elijah 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 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Kim",
"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": "Elijah Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Nora Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"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 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": "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... | 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_0661 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"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": "Eth... | [
{
"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 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 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Morgan",
"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": "Ethan Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Shah",
"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": "Noah Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what pr... | {
"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... | 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_0662 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"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": "Ivy 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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Ivy 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": "Miles Walker",
"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": "Ivy Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Diaz",
"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 two stakehol... | [
"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_0663 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"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 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 campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam 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 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": "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 campaign planning brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Morris",
"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 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": "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_0664 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"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": "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 the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan 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": "Noah Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"t... | {
"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": "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 campaign planning brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable a... | {
"email_subject": "Velora Motion 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": "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 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": [
"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... | 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_0665 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"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": "Ivy Brook... | [
{
"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": "Ivy 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 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles 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 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": "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 creative review brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Noah Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wh... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media 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 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 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... | 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_0666 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles 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 the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles 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 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe Nguyen",
"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 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": "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 client onboarding brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable a... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North 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 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": "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... | 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_0667 | train | medium | 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": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Zoe 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": "Zoe 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 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Shah",
"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 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": "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 retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Diaz",
"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 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 stakehol... | [
"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... | 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_0668 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles 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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles Chen",
"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": "Nora 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 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": "Miles Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor 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 tw... | [
"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... | 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_0669 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"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": "Elijah 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": "Elijah 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": "Ethan Patel",
"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": "Elijah Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team w... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Nora Shah",
"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... | 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_0670 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Lu... | [
{
"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 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 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe Walker",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"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 source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Lucas Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable an... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative 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 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... | 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_0671 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ivy 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": "Ivy 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 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Mia Morris",
"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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope 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": "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 creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio 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": "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... | 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_0672 | 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": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Noah 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": "Noah 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": "Mia Diaz",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"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 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 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 client onboarding brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable a... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak 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 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": "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... | 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_0673 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Liam Ch... | [
{
"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 campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Sofia Rivera",
"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 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 Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pr... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Chen",
"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": "Mia Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge 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 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": "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... | 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_0674 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Isla 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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla 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 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Brooks",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"t... | {
"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 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": "Isla Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Brooks",
"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 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 tw... | [
"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_0675 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Jalen 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 the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen Morgan",
"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": "Sofia Kim",
"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 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": "Jalen Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Noah Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"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 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 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_0676 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ivy Nguyen",
"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 the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ivy Nguyen",
"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": "Ivy 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": "Ivy Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Morgan",
"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 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... | [
"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... | 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_0677 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective 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 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 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Morris",
"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": "Miles Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas 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 stakehol... | [
"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_0678 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"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": "Elijah 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 the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Elijah Morgan",
"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": "Ivy Patel",
"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": "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 retrospective brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas 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 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": "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 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": [
"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_0679 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"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": "Lucas... | [
{
"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 Chen",
"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": "Ethan Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"te... | {
"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": "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 client onboarding brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"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_0680 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ethan 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": "Ethan 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": "Elijah Brooks",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"t... | {
"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 source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft 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 want... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable a... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media 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": "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_0681 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"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": "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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla Kim",
"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": "Mia Chen",
"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 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": "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 campaign planning brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wh... | {
"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... | 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_0682 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla 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 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Rivera",
"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": "Isla Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wh... | {
"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... | 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_0683 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ethan 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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan 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 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe Patel",
"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": "Ethan Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wa... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverabl... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor 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": "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... | 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_0684 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"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": "Mia 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": "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 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Patel",
"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 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 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 creative review brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what ... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio 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 two 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": "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... | 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_0685 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"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 approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Ava 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 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Diaz",
"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": "Ava Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas 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": "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... | 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_0686 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"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 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": "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 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Isla Morgan",
"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 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": "Miles Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Velora Motion 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 ... | [
"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 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": [
"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_0687 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Mia Shah",
"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 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": "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 retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Diaz",
"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 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 stakehol... | [
"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... | 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_0688 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"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": "Ava 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 approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"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 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Isla Morgan",
"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 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": "Ava Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge Labs 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": "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... | 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_0689 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"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 legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe 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": "Isla Walker",
"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": "Zoe Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Patel",
"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": "Nora Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Velora Motion 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 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": "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 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": [
"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_0690 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"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": "Ivy 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": "Ivy 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 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Mia Nguyen",
"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 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": "Ivy Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof an... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what... | {
"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_0691 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"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": "Liam 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 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Sofia Shah",
"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 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": "Liam Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wan... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable ... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor 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": "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_0692 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"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": "Elijah P... | [
{
"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": "Elijah Patel",
"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": "Isla Brooks",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"tex... | {
"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": "Elijah Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works 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 ... | [
"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_0693 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Lucas Bro... | [
{
"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": "Lucas 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 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Lopez",
"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 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 nex... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Lucas Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works 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 two 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": "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_0694 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": ... | [
{
"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 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 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah Diaz",
"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": "Ethan Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative 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 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 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_0695 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"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": "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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"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 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Sofia 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 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 re... | [
{
"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": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what ... | {
"email_subject": "Orbit Thread 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 two stakeholders ... | [
"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 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": [
"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_0696 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"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 approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Ava 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 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Isla 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": "Ava Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Patel",
"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": "Nora Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable a... | {
"email_subject": "Velora Motion 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 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": "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 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": [
"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_0697 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"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 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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles 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 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Morris",
"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 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 lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Miles Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Kim",
"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": "Noah Diaz",
"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 two sta... | [
"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_0698 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"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": "Zoe Morris",
"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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe 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 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Ethan 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": "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 vendor sync brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what p... | {
"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 two stakehol... | [
"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_0699 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"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": "Liam 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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam Rivera",
"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": "Ava 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 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 ne... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Liam Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Rivera",
"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": "Miles Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"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 two stak... | [
"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... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.