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_0700 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Elijah... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Elijah 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": "Ava Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"tex... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the nex... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Elijah Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Chen",
"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": "Miles Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Har... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Lattice Harbor working brief",
"Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"Lattice Harbor launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0701 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Jalen Morgan",
"ro... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep 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 vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava Morgan",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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": "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 vendor sync brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"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 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 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_0702 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"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": "Et... | [
{
"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 creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the 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": "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 creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable an... | {
"email_subject": "Orbit Thread creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Orbit Thread working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Orbit Thread working brief",
"Orbit Thread approval thread",
"Orbit Thread launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0703 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"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": "Ivy 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": "Ivy 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": "Isla 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 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 tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ivy Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Patel",
"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 l... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a 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_0704 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 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 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Isla Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wan... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable ... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that leg... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0705 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Sofia 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": "Sofia 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 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Morgan",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"t... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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": "Sofia Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Sofia Morgan",
"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": "Isla Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"email_subject": "Orbit Thread 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": "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_0706 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ava Rivera",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ava Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Ethan Patel",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review e... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ava Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wha... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal lan... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0707 | 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": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"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 the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Elijah Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Morgan",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"... | {
"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 Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable a... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas 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": "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... | 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_0708 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Nora Kim",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Nora 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": "Miles Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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": "Nora Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Morgan",
"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 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... | 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_0709 | 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": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"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 approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Ivy Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Isla 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 approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next re... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ivy Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wh... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that 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": "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_0710 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"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 Ng... | [
{
"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": "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 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Isla Chen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Lucas Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Nguyen",
"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": "Zoe Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"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 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 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... | 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_0711 | 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": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Elij... | [
{
"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 Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Ethan Walker",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still maki... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Elijah Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team w... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Rivera",
"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": "Ethan Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped delivera... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works 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": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0712 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"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": "Sofia Kim",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Sofia 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 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Chen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the nex... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Sofia Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Sofia Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas 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 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": "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 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": [
"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_0713 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"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": "Elijah 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": "Elijah Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah Shah",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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 Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable a... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative 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 agree... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0714 | 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": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ivy 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": "Ivy 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 Shah",
"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 source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ivy Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy 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": "Miles Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the so... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0715 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla 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 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Chen",
"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": "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 retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wha... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas 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 languag... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "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 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": [
"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_0716 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ivy Walker",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ivy 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": "Zoe 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 legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next revie... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ivy Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a 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 legal l... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0717 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"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": "Liam Nguyen",
"ro... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah Patel",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still m... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Liam Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what ... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the source footage ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0718 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Noah Lope... | [
{
"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 campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Diaz",
"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 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": "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 campaign planning brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and ... | {
"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... | 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_0719 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"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 Patel",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ava Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Diaz",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ... | {
"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 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 retrospective brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Nora Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio 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 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": "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_0720 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Jalen 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": "Jalen 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 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Chen",
"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 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": "Jalen Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wa... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable a... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media 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 le... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0721 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"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 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 vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam 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": "Nora Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Brooks",
"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": "Isla Brooks",
"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 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": "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_0722 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 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 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Isla Rivera",
"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": "Isla Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wan... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and ... | {
"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 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": "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... | 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_0723 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ethan ... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan 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": "Noah Brooks",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"tex... | {
"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": "Ethan Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "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_0724 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning 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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"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 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Isla 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 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": "Lucas Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava 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... | 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_0725 | 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": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Nora Shah",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Nora Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah Shah",
"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": "Nora Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Shah",
"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 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... | 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_0726 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"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": "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 legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava 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 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 Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North Labs campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Tidal N... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Tidal North Labs working brief",
"Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"Tidal North Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0727 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"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": "Liam 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": "Sofia Morgan",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"t... | {
"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": "Liam Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles 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 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 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": "Cinder Atlas working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Cinder Atlas working brief",
"Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"Cinder Atlas launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0728 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ethan 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": "Ethan Nguyen",
"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": "Ethan Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"tex... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ethan Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed t... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Northbe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Northbeam Studio working brief",
"Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"Northbeam Studio launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0729 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Lia... | [
{
"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 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 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Mia Chen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the 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 Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the sourc... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0730 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Elijah 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": "Elijah 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": "Ava 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 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": "Elijah Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team w... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah 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": "Ivy Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverabl... | {
"email_subject": "Orbit Thread 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 th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Orbit Thread working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Orbit Thread working brief",
"Orbit Thread approval thread",
"Orbit Thread launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0731 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"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": "Sofia 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": "Sofia Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Mia Chen",
"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": "Sofia Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Sofia Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Rivera",
"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 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_0732 | 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": "Sofia... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Sofia 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": "Lucas Morris",
"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": "Sofia Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Sofia Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Juniper Relay 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 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": "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_0733 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ivy 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 Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Sofia Kim",
"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 Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Brooks",
"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 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_0734 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Isla Chen",
"ro... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"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 the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next re... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Isla Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Patel",
"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 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": "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_0735 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles 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": "Miles Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Walker",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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": "Miles Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"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 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": "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_0736 | train | medium | 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": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Zoe Brooks",
"role": "... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe 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 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Sofia Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I a... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next revi... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Zoe Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Patel",
"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 the approver want... | [
"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... | 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_0737 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"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": "Lucas Lopez"... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Lucas 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": "Zoe Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while st... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Lucas Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak 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 foo... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0738 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Jalen Lope... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah 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 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": "Jalen Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a 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 th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0739 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Lucas Shah",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Lucas Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Isla Morgan",
"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 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 Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas 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": "Liam Chen",
"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... | 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_0740 | 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": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Morris",
"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 approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Jalen Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Morris",
"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": "Elijah Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"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 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": "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_0741 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ivy ... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Ivy Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Lopez",
"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": "Ivy Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Noah Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"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_0742 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "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 approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe Diaz",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next re... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Isla Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wh... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that 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": "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_0743 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Noah Shah",
"role": "c... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Noah 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 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Mia Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ag... | {
"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": "Noah Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Noah Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Orbit Thread vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that 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": "Orbit Thread working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Orbit Thread working brief",
"Orbit Thread approval thread",
"Orbit Thread launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0744 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"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": "Ethan Ri... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan 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 Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"t... | {
"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": "Ethan Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wa... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable a... | {
"email_subject": "Orbit Thread campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Orbit Thread working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Orbit Thread working brief",
"Orbit Thread approval thread",
"Orbit Thread launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0745 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Nora 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": "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 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Ethan Rivera",
"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": "Nora Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge Labs creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the ap... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge L... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Glowforge Labs working brief",
"Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"Glowforge Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0746 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"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": [
{
"name": "... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the 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": "Zoe Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge Labs creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge L... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Glowforge Labs working brief",
"Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"Glowforge Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0747 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ethan Walker",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava Lopez",
"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 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 lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ethan Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wa... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable a... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio 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 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 lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Northbeam Studio working brief",
"Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"Northbeam Studio launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0748 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Isla Walker",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"t... | {
"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": "Lucas Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North Labs client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "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_0749 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"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 Lopez",
"r... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Nguyen",
"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": "Miles Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Noah Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak 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 approver w... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0750 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 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 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam 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 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": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Morris",
"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 the sour... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Cinder Atlas working brief",
"Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"Cinder Atlas launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0751 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Liam Patel",
"... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Ivy Shah",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ag... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review eas... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Liam Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wha... | {
"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 legal language i... | [
"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... | 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_0752 | 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": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Noah 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 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen 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 legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review e... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Noah 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 retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Morris",
"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 legal la... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "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_0753 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"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": "Nora 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 legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Nora 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 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Shah",
"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 legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review easy... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Nora Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what p... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge Labs vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal language ... | [
"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... | 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_0754 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ava Patel",
"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": "Ava 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": "Elijah Chen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the 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": "Ava Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what pr... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge Labs 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": "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... | 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_0755 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Nora 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 legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Nora Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Brooks",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"t... | {
"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": "Nora Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor 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 le... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "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_0756 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"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 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 client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah Morgan",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"te... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next revie... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "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 client onboarding brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that 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": "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_0757 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"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 the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe 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 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Nguyen",
"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": "Zoe Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Juniper Relay 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": "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... | 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_0758 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Isla Nguyen",
"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": "Isla Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora 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 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 tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Isla Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"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 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": "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_0759 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mile... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles 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": "Nora Brooks",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"t... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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": "Miles Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed t... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Northbe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Northbeam Studio working brief",
"Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"Northbeam Studio launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0760 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia 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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia 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 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I agre... | {
"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": "Mia Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Diaz",
"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": "Liam Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wh... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas 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 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": "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_0761 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Noah 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": "Noah 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 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Mia Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Noah Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wan... | [
{
"owner": "Noah Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review 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": "Echoframe Media 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 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": "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_0762 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Elija... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Elijah 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 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Ivy Kim",
"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 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 tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Elijah Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Juniper Relay 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 legal l... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "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_0763 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Jalen 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": "Jalen 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 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Walker",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review e... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Jalen Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal la... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0764 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia 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 legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia 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": "Sofia 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 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 tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Kim",
"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 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 legal lang... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0765 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"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 Walker",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Nguyen",
"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 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": "Mia Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"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 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 lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Northbeam Studio working brief",
"Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"Northbeam Studio launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0766 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Diaz",
"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": "Ava Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Noah Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a 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 stakeho... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0767 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Liam Nguyen"... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Shah",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"tex... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Liam Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "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_0768 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Isla ... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla 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 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Mia 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": "Isla Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable a... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agree... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Northbe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Northbeam Studio working brief",
"Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"Northbeam Studio launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0769 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ava Kim",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ava 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 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Shah",
"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 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": "Ava Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable an... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "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_0770 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"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": "Ava 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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Ava Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Lopez",
"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": "Ava Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wha... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge 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 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": "Glowforge Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge L... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Glowforge Labs working brief",
"Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"Glowforge Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0771 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"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 2026-04-24."
},
{
"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 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": "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": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0772 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Lucas Morgan",
"role":... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Lucas Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next revi... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Lucas Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Morgan",
"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": "Ethan Diaz",
"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 the approver want... | [
"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... | 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_0773 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Noah... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Noah 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 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Ivy 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": "Noah Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Noah Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works 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": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0774 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles 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 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": "Nora Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe 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 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_0775 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ava 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": "Ava 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 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Shah",
"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": "Ava Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Shah",
"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": "Isla Morris",
"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... | 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_0776 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Sofi... | [
{
"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 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 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Morgan",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next re... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Sofia Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Sofia Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge 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 the approve... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "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_0777 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Isla 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 source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen 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 the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Isla Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia 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... | 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_0778 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"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": "Liam 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 the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam 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": "Ethan 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 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": "Liam Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Morris",
"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 teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the 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... | 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_0779 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"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": "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 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah 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": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what p... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak 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 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": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0780 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"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": "Lucas 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 source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Lucas 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": "Mia Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"tex... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Lucas Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"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 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": "Lattice Harbor working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Har... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Lattice Harbor working brief",
"Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"Lattice Harbor launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0781 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Zoe 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": "Zoe 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 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe Shah",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next revie... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Zoe Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof and... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wh... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas 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 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": "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 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": [
"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_0782 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Lucas 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 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Ivy 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 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": "Lucas Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wh... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a 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 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": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0783 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name"... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "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 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the 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": "Lucas Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Velora Motion client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Velora Motion working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Velora Motion approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Velora Motion... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Velora Motion working brief",
"Velora Motion approval thread",
"Velora Motion launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap ve... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0784 | 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": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia 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": "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 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe Walker",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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": "Mia Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Walker",
"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 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... | 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_0785 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"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": "Mia 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": "Mia 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": "Noah Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ag... | {
"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": "Mia Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Morris",
"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": "Ivy Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas 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 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": "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_0786 | 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": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"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 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 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 vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe 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": "Jalen Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Morgan",
"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": "Lucas Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what... | {
"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 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": "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_0787 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Nora Walker",
"... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Nora 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 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Diaz",
"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 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 rev... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Nora Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wha... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the 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": "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_0788 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ivy 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": "Ivy Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"tex... | {
"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": "Ivy Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable a... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak 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 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... | 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_0789 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ethan Lopez",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep 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 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Chen",
"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": "Ethan Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wha... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor 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": "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_0790 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ethan 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": "Ethan Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Ethan 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 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": "Ethan Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Nora Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and ... | {
"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 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": "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_0791 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Mia Morris",
"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": "Isla Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof an... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge 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 two stakeho... | [
"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_0792 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Isla... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Isla Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0793 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Elijah 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 legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Elijah 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 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Walker",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review easy... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Elijah Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync 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 w... | {
"email_subject": "Velora Motion vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal language i... | [
"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... | 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_0794 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"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": "Mia Kim... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"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 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ag... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review eas... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof an... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Noah Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what proo... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal languag... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0795 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name":... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Elijah Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Brooks",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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": "Elijah Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a 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 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": "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 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": [
"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_0796 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Elijah K... | [
{
"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 campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Morris",
"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 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 campaign planning brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"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_0797 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Nora 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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Nora Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Ethan Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Nora Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and ... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media 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 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": "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_0798 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Sofia Lopez",
"ro... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Sofia Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "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 legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review e... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Sofia Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Sofia Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wh... | {
"email_subject": "Velora Motion retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal langu... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "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... | 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_0799 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Brooks",
"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": "Mia Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge Labs client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge L... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Glowforge Labs working brief",
"Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"Glowforge Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.