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_0800 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Zoe 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 legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Morgan",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next re... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Zoe Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe 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": "Mia Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0801 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Zoe 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": "Zoe 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 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Chen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Zoe Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"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... | 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_0802 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Nora Shah",
"rol... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Nora Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Ethan Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ag... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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 Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Lopez",
"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 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 is 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 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_0803 | 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": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia Lopez",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Isla Brooks",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next revi... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"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 legal ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0804 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ava Lopez",
"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": "Ava Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava Walker",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I a... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next re... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ava Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what pro... | {
"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 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": "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_0805 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Zoe Shah",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Patel",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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": "Zoe Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor 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 tw... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Har... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a 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_0806 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles Pa... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "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 Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Rivera",
"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 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": "Miles Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Kim",
"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 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... | 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_0807 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"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": "Liam Chen",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Rivera",
"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 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 Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what pro... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North Labs vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal langua... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Tidal N... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Tidal North Labs working brief",
"Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"Tidal North Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0808 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah 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 the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved w... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Isla Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wan... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Brooks",
"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": "Lucas Diaz",
"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 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 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": "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_0809 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ethan Diaz... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Patel",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the 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": "Ethan Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the a... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a 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_0810 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"na... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Ivy 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 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Rivera",
"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": "Ivy Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof and... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what p... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that t... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0811 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Isla 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": "Isla Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"te... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while s... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Isla Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the sou... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0812 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Zoe 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": "Zoe Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Ethan Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next re... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Zoe Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and ... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0813 | train | easy | 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": "Zoe Brooks"... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe 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 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": "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": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wh... | {
"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 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": "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_0814 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Liam M... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam 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 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam 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 the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the n... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Liam Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wan... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North Labs vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the 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": "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... | 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_0815 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"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": "Noah Lopez",... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Noah Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Chen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Noah Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Noah Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak 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 source ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a 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_0816 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"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": "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 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava Walker",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making t... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "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": "Liam Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"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... | 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_0817 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Luc... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "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 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": "Ava Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved whi... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Lucas Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wa... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"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 th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0818 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"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 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Isla Morgan",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"t... | {
"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": "Ethan Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Orbit Thread 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": "Orbit Thread working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Orbit Thread working brief",
"Orbit Thread approval thread",
"Orbit Thread launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0819 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"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": "Elijah Chen",... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep 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 vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam 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 approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the n... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Elijah Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wan... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a 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 th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0820 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"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": "No... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "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 retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Sofia 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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Noah Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Noah Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that two ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Northbe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Northbeam Studio working brief",
"Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"Northbeam Studio launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0821 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"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": "Miles Kim",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles 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": "Jalen Brooks",
"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 approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the ne... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Miles Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that t... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0822 | train | easy | 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": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Sofia 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": "Sofia Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Shah",
"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": "Sofia Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Sofia Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that 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": "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_0823 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Liam Brooks... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Walker",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Liam Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Velora Motion creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal 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": "Velora Motion working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Velora Motion approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Velora Motion... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Velora Motion working brief",
"Velora Motion approval thread",
"Velora Motion launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap ve... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0824 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"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": ... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "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 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": "Miles Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while stil... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Miles Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"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_0825 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Isla Patel",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I a... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while stil... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Isla Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what ... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the source... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Har... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Lattice Harbor working brief",
"Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"Lattice Harbor launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0826 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Nora 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 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava 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 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": "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 vendor sync brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a 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... | 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_0827 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ethan M... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Diaz",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"te... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the 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 Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wa... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Morris",
"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": "Isla Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverabl... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge Labs 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": "Glowforge Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge L... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Glowforge Labs working brief",
"Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"Glowforge Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0828 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"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": "Liam Kim",
"role... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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": "Liam Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Shah",
"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 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 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 tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Glowforge Labs working brief",
"Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"Glowforge Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0829 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ava Shah",
"... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Ava Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Ivy Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I agree... | {
"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": "Ava Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof an... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Nguyen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what pro... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media 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 stakeholde... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "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_0830 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"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": "Nora Di... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "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 Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Sofia 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 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": "Nora Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Velora Motion client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Velora Motion working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Velora Motion approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Velora Motion... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Velora Motion working brief",
"Velora Motion approval thread",
"Velora Motion launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap ve... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0831 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles 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": "Miles Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah Walker",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved whi... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Miles Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"email_subject": "Velora Motion retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Velora Motion working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Velora Motion approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Velora Motion... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Velora Motion working brief",
"Velora Motion approval thread",
"Velora Motion launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap ve... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0832 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Lucas Patel",
"r... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Lucas 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": "Elijah Chen",
"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": "Lucas Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge Labs retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that two 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": "Glowforge Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge L... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Glowforge Labs working brief",
"Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"Glowforge Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0833 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 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 client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah 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 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": "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 client onboarding brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Lopez",
"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 teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that t... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Tidal N... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Tidal North Labs working brief",
"Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"Tidal North Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0834 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia Shah",... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wha... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that 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": "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_0835 | 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": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Lucas Shah",
"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": "Lucas Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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": "Lucas Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what p... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas 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 footag... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_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_0836 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"nam... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla 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": "Zoe Brooks",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next re... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Isla Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pr... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0837 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ethan 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": "Ethan Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Ethan Nguyen",
"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 Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the 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 lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Cinder Atlas working brief",
"Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"Cinder Atlas launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0838 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Noah Chen",
"role"... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Noah Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Ivy Chen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I agr... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next rev... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Noah Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Noah Chen",
"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": "Ethan Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0839 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"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 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": "Miles Chen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making th... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Isla Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"email_subject": "Juniper Relay client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Juniper Relay working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Juniper Relay working brief",
"Juniper Relay approval thread",
"Juniper Relay launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap ve... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0840 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Liam 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": "Liam Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Patel",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while st... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Liam Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Noah Rivera",
"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 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": "Glowforge Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge L... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Glowforge Labs working brief",
"Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"Glowforge Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0841 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ethan Chen",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan 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": "Ethan Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"te... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the 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": "Ethan Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge 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 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 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_0842 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"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 Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah Morgan",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the ne... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Lucas Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wan... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agree... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Northbe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Northbeam Studio working brief",
"Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"Northbeam Studio launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0843 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Zoe Morga... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "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 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 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 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 Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Orbit Thread client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "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... | 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_0844 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"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": "Jalen 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": "Jalen Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen 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 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": "Jalen Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Lopez",
"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 lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "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_0845 | 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": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"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": "Lucas Rive... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "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 vendor sync. 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 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": "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 vendor sync brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas 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": "Cinder Atlas working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Cinder Atlas working brief",
"Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"Cinder Atlas launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0846 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"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": "Jalen Nguyen"... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"t... | {
"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": "Jalen Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wa... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable an... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas 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 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": "Cinder Atlas working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Cinder Atlas working brief",
"Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"Cinder Atlas launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0847 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"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": "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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Sofia Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Ethan Chen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "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 client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge 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 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": "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_0848 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Liam Walker",
"role"... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam 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": "Jalen 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": "Liam Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Lopez",
"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 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 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 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_0849 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review 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 creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Isla Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved whil... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Northbe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Northbeam Studio working brief",
"Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"Northbeam Studio launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0850 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles S... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles Shah",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava 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 legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Miles Shah"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Shah",
"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": "Mia Diaz",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge Labs campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed tha... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge L... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Glowforge Labs working brief",
"Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"Glowforge Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0851 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"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": "Mia 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": "Mia Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while stil... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wh... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the source f... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Cinder Atlas working brief",
"Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"Cinder Atlas launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0852 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "No... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "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 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 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"tex... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved w... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Noah Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wan... | [
{
"owner": "Noah Nguyen",
"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": "Ava Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas 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 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": "Cinder Atlas working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Cinder Atlas working brief",
"Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"Cinder Atlas launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0853 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Isla River... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah 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": "Isla Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wan... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Nora Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable a... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge Labs creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge L... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Glowforge Labs working brief",
"Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"Glowforge Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0854 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Zo... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the n... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Zoe Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative 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 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": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0855 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Noah Broo... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Noah 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": "Lucas Shah",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"tex... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the nex... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Noah Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Noah Brooks",
"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": "Mia Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative 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 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": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0856 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"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": "Jalen Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"t... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Jalen Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"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 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_0857 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Jalen Lopez",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Morris",
"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": "Jalen Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Lopez",
"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 Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what ... | {
"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... | 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_0858 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"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": "Elijah Walker",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Elijah 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": "Elijah Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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": "Elijah Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team w... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Lucas Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable an... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative 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 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": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0859 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"nam... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Isla 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": "Ivy Morris",
"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": "Isla Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wan... | [
{
"owner": "Isla Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and ... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a 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... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0860 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"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": "Zoe Rivera",... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Mia 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": "Zoe Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North Labs campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Tidal N... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Tidal North Labs working brief",
"Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"Tidal North Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0861 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia Lo... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia 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": "Zoe Shah",
"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 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": "Mia Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wh... | {
"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 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": "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_0862 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"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": "Mia Pa... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Sofia Patel",
"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": "Mia Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable a... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Har... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Lattice Harbor working brief",
"Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"Lattice Harbor launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0863 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"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": "Zoe 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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next r... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Zoe Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what ... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that two stakehol... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "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_0864 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"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": "Lucas 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": "Lucas Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Ivy Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved whil... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Lucas Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Nora Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"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_0865 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Noah Pat... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Noah Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Patel",
"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": "Noah Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Noah Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and ... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Cinder Atlas working brief",
"Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"Cinder Atlas launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0866 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Elijah Morri... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Elijah Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Diaz",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"t... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while s... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Elijah Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Rivera",
"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 teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that t... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Tidal N... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Tidal North Labs working brief",
"Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"Tidal North Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0867 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles Nguyen",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Mia Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Miles Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Walker",
"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 proof-first recap as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal 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": "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_0868 | 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": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles 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": "Miles Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"te... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making th... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Miles Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Lopez",
"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_0869 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ava Walker",
"role":... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ava 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": "Liam Lopez",
"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": "Ava Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what p... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a 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": "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... | 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_0870 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles Di... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "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 Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Morris",
"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 source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while s... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Miles Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Juniper Relay 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": "Juniper Relay working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Juniper Relay working brief",
"Juniper Relay approval thread",
"Juniper Relay launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap ve... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0871 | 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": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles Brooks",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles 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 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora Brooks",
"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": "Miles Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Brooks",
"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 Walker",
"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 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": "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_0872 | 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": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia Brooks",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah 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 legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next review... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that legal... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0873 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles Mo... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Mia Patel",
"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": "Miles Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Orbit Thread client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "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... | 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_0874 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Noah 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": "Noah Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava Kim",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I agre... | {
"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": "Noah Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Noah Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Noah Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what pro... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North Labs vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that two stakehol... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Tidal N... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Tidal North Labs working brief",
"Tidal North Labs approval thread",
"Tidal North Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0875 | 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": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Liam Lopez",
"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": "Liam Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next r... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Liam Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what pr... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that two stakeholders... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Cinder Atlas working brief",
"Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"Cinder Atlas launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0876 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"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": "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 retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Sofia Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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": "Nora Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what... | {
"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 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": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0877 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Etha... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Diaz",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"te... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ethan Brooks"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Brooks",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan 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... | 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_0878 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Jalen... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Ivy 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": "Jalen Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ava Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0879 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia Diaz",
"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": "Mia Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah Patel",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the retrospective workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Mia Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof an... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what p... | {
"email_subject": "Orbit Thread retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that two stakehold... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "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... | 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_0880 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Iv... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "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 Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles 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": "Ivy Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Ivy Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the sour... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Cinder Atlas working brief",
"Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"Cinder Atlas launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0881 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"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": "Jalen Walk... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Ivy 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 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 Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that two stakeholders ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "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... | 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_0882 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Jalen Lopez",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah 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": "Jalen Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wha... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a 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 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": "Echoframe Media working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe Media approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Echoframe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Echoframe Media working brief",
"Echoframe Media approval thread",
"Echoframe Media launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast re... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0883 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "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 Ch... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I a... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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": "Mia Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Chen",
"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": "Noah Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what p... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio 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 approver... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Northbe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Northbeam Studio working brief",
"Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"Northbeam Studio launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Medium rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture mix multiple constraints or artifact dependencies, so a strong answer has to stay coordinated rather than merely plausible. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-medium",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0884 | 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": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Elijah 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": "Elijah 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 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Shah",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the ne... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Elijah Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Chen",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that 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": "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_0885 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Zoe ... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Zoe Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Zoe Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Nguyen",
"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": "Elijah Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0886 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Lucas 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": "Lucas 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 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Mia Walker",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still ... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "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 vendor sync brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wha... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for vendor sync, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the source f... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0887 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Isla Kim",
"rol... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "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 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Isla Patel",
"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 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": "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 retrospective brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"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 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 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": "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_0888 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"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": "Ja... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava Patel",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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": "Jalen Kim"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Kim",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Nora Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note ... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative 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 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": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Easy rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture still require grounded execution, but the main blocker is explicit and the gold path is comparatively direct. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-easy",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": false,
"recommended_reviewers": 1,
"adjudication_mode": "single-review-spot-check",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
"Fol... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0889 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"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": "Miles 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": "Miles Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-24."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the ne... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Miles Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wan... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable... | {
"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... | 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_0890 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name":... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Isla Shah",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making th... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Liam Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Nguyen",
"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": "Ethan Rivera",
"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 tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Orbit Thread working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Orbit Thread working brief",
"Orbit Thread approval thread",
"Orbit Thread launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0891 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"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": "Lucas Chen",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"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 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Nguyen",
"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 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 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 proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Isla Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Velora Motion client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that two... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "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_0892 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"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": "Ja... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Ava Chen",
"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": "Jalen Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Nora Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative 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 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": "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_0893 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles D... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Chen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the ne... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Miles Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team want... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable... | {
"email_subject": "Velora Motion campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed t... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Velora Motion working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Velora Motion approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Velora Motion... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Velora Motion working brief",
"Velora Motion approval thread",
"Velora Motion launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap ve... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0894 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"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": "Jalen... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Rivera",
"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 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": "Jalen Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed t... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0895 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles Wa... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles 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 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Chen",
"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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still maki... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Miles Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wa... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Zoe Shah",
"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... | 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_0896 | 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": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles 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": "Miles Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Morgan",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved whil... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "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 creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"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_0897 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Tidal North Labs",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Liam ... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Liam Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Ethan Chen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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 Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Sofia Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and no... | {
"email_subject": "Tidal North Labs campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a 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_0898 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Signal Oak",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Jalen Chen",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Jalen Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Mia 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": "Jalen Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Jalen Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what... | {
"email_subject": "Signal Oak retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the approver wa... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_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_0899 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles Chen",
"r... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Diaz",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I a... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that two stakeholders still disagree on scope is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next re... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Miles Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what ... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative 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 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": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.