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_0000 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "conference room review",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles 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 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Lucas Walker",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the 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 Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Miles Walker",
"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": "Miles Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"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... | 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_0001 | 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": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Mia Chen",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Mia Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Ivy Morris",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text":... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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": "Mia Chen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Mia Chen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Kim",
"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 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 le... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Signal Oak working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Signal Oak launch t... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Signal Oak working brief",
"Signal Oak approval thread",
"Signal Oak launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versus over... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0002 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Juniper Relay",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Elijah Lopez",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Elijah Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"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 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": "Elijah Lopez"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wa... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Lopez",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ivy Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable... | {
"email_subject": "Juniper Relay 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": "Juniper Relay working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Juniper Relay... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Juniper Relay working brief",
"Juniper Relay approval thread",
"Juniper Relay launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap ve... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0003 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Echoframe Media",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Diaz",
"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 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": "Zoe Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof a... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Rivera",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note what ... | {
"email_subject": "Echoframe Media vendor sync: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a 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... | 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_0004 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-15T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ava Nguy... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Ava 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 2026-05-15."
},
{
"speaker": "Mia Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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": "Ava Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-24T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Brooks",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note w... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a 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 ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_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_0005 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"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 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 two stakeholders still disagree on scope visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
... | [
{
"speaker": "Lucas Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Isla Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the creative review workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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": "Lucas Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants p... | [
{
"owner": "Lucas Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-25T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Miles Morgan",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and ... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works 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": "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... | 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_0006 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Cinder Atlas",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Miles Pat... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Miles Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for campaign planning. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora 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 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": "2026-04-26T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverabl... | {
"email_subject": "Cinder Atlas campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Cinder Atlas la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Cinder Atlas working brief",
"Cinder Atlas approval thread",
"Cinder Atlas launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0007 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Zoe Diaz",
"r... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Zoe 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": "Miles Nguyen",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text": "I ... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the vendor sync workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next revi... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Zoe Diaz"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof an... | [
{
"owner": "Zoe Diaz",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-27T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Nguyen",
"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 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": "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_0008 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"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": "Elijah... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"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 2026-04-28."
},
{
"speaker": "Ethan Patel",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that 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": "Elijah Morris"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team w... | [
{
"owner": "Elijah Morris",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-28T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Mia Morris",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverabl... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge Labs client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge L... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Glowforge Labs working brief",
"Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"Glowforge Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0009 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"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 Walke... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "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 creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Morris",
"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 approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making t... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Liam Walker"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wan... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Walker",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-16T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"email_subject": "Glowforge Labs creative review: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for creative review, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Glowforge L... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Glowforge Labs working brief",
"Glowforge Labs approval thread",
"Glowforge Labs launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0010 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Glowforge Labs",
"meeting_type": "creative review",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-08T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for creative review without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Nora 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 legal language is still pending visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"slot": ... | [
{
"speaker": "Nora Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for creative review. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-08."
},
{
"speaker": "Miles Nguyen",
"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": "Nora Morgan"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Morgan",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the creative review brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-17T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Walker",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"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 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": "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_0011 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Harborline Works",
"meeting_type": "retrospective",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-05T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for retrospective without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Nora Nguyen",... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Nora Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for retrospective. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-05."
},
{
"speaker": "Elijah 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": "Nora Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wan... | [
{
"owner": "Nora Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the retrospective brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-18T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Jalen Kim",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and n... | {
"email_subject": "Harborline Works retrospective: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for retrospective, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that t... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Harborline Works working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Harborline Works approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Harborl... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Harborline Works working brief",
"Harborline Works approval thread",
"Harborline Works launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | Hard rows for meeting summary, decisions, and action capture contain ambiguity, adversarial traps, and high-cost failure modes, so the example tests more than surface fluency and is intended to stress the benchmark slices. | [
"high-context",
"constraint-dense",
"difficulty-hard",
"decision-tension",
"blocker-preservation",
"owner-date-extraction",
"tone-sensitive-followup",
"scope-change",
"stress-case"
] | [
"mixed-consensus",
"owner-and-deadline-coupling",
"soft-pushback-in-transcript",
"deferred-scope",
"multi-constraint-pressure"
] | [
"Polishes away unresolved blockers in the summary.",
"Drops owners, due dates, or dependencies from action items.",
"Writes a follow-up that sounds more resolved than the meeting actually was.",
"Collapses several real constraints into a generic polished answer that sounds smoother than the source allows."
] | {
"status": "starter-train-ready",
"gold_candidate": true,
"recommended_reviewers": 2,
"adjudication_mode": "dual-review-plus-adjudication",
"required_checks": [
"The summary preserves both the decision and what is still unresolved.",
"Action items are attributable, dated, and dependency-aware.",
... |
zarn_meeting_to_actions_train_0012 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.85 | {
"brand": "Northbeam Studio",
"meeting_type": "campaign planning",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Slack huddle",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for campaign planning without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "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 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 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Jalen Shah",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"te... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a proof-first recap for the campaign planning workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that legal language is still pending is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the next revi... | [
{
"decision": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ethan Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants pro... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the campaign planning brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-19T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Liam Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and not... | {
"email_subject": "Northbeam Studio campaign planning: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a proof-first recap as the first deliverable for campaign planning, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that ... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Northbe... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a proof-first recap as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Northbeam Studio working brief",
"Northbeam Studio approval thread",
"Northbeam Studio launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0013 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.93 | {
"brand": "First Mile Creative",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Et... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Ethan 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": "Miles Rivera",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"t... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a tighter pilot package for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making th... | [
{
"decision": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ethan Patel"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants ... | [
{
"owner": "Ethan Patel",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a tighter pilot package.",
"due_date": "2026-04-20T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Nora Patel",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and... | {
"email_subject": "First Mile Creative client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agree... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "First Mile Creative working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "First Mile Creative approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "F... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a tighter pilot package as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certa... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"First Mile Creative working brief",
"First Mile Creative approval thread",
"First Mile Creative launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0014 | train | hard | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.89 | {
"brand": "Orbit Thread",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-12T00:00:00",
"channel": "Zoom",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Sofia Nguyen",
... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the source footage is wider than the launch window allows visible instead of glossing over ... | [
{
"speaker": "Sofia Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-12."
},
{
"speaker": "Noah Brooks",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"t... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a lightweight review draft for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the source footage is wider than the launch window allows is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved... | [
{
"decision": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Sofia Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wa... | [
{
"owner": "Sofia Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a lightweight review draft.",
"due_date": "2026-04-21T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverab... | {
"email_subject": "Orbit Thread client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed th... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Orbit Thread working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Orbit Thread la... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a lightweight review draft as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising ce... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Orbit Thread working brief",
"Orbit Thread approval thread",
"Orbit Thread launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap versu... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0015 | train | easy | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.88 | {
"brand": "Lattice Harbor",
"meeting_type": "client onboarding",
"meeting_date": "2026-05-01T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for client onboarding without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Ava Ngu... | [
{
"slot": 1,
"topic": "What the first deliverable should actually cover",
"goal": "Reduce scope while preserving the core proof."
},
{
"slot": 2,
"topic": "What is still unresolved",
"goal": "Keep the approver wants fewer review rounds visible instead of glossing over it."
},
{
"... | [
{
"speaker": "Ava Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for client onboarding. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-05-01."
},
{
"speaker": "Liam Lopez",
"role": "stakeholder",
"timestamp": "00:21",
"text... | {
"executive_summary": "The team aligned on using a teaser-first cut for the client onboarding workstream so the project can move without reopening full scope. They agreed that the approver wants fewer review rounds is still live, so the follow-up has to stay honest about what is unresolved while still making the nex... | [
{
"decision": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable.",
"reason": "It shortens the review burden and makes feedback easier to collect.",
"owner": "Ava Nguyen"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proof ... | [
{
"owner": "Ava Nguyen",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the client onboarding brief around a teaser-first cut.",
"due_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Elijah Shah",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note... | {
"email_subject": "Lattice Harbor client onboarding: scoped recap and next review step",
"followup_email": "Thanks everyone. We aligned on using a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable for client onboarding, then revisiting the broader package once we have reactions to the tighter pass. We also agreed that the... | [
"Does the approval group want one review slot or two options?",
"Which proof beat is non-negotiable in the first scoped pass?",
"What would force the project back into broader scope before the first review?"
] | {
"primary_metric": "action_item_f1",
"secondary_metrics": [
"summary_faithfulness",
"decision_recall",
"owner_accuracy",
"followup_consistency",
"blocker_preservation"
],
"automatic_failures": [
"Invents consensus on unresolved blockers",
"Drops owner or due-date information",
"... | {
"documents": [
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor working brief",
"note": "Current scope is wider than the review team wants."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"note": "Stakeholders want fewer rounds and lower-friction recap language."
},
{
"name": "Lattice Har... | [
{
"tradeoff": "narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"why_it_mattered": "A broader first deliverable would create another slow feedback cycle.",
"resolved_direction": "Use a teaser-first cut as the first deliverable."
},
{
"tradeoff": "fast recap versus overpromising certainty"... | [
"A recap that sounds too polished could hide the blocker and trigger pushback.",
"If owners are omitted, the scoped-first decision may get reinterpreted as vague planning.",
"If the next step sounds too broad, stakeholders may delay instead of replying quickly."
] | [
"Summary preserves both the scoped-first decision and the blocker.",
"Action items include owners, dependencies, and due dates.",
"The follow-up package sounds aligned with the tone concerns raised in the meeting."
] | {
"modality": "meeting-transcript-plus-preread",
"source_artifacts": [
"Lattice Harbor working brief",
"Lattice Harbor approval thread",
"Lattice Harbor launch tracker"
],
"speaker_count": 4,
"decision_pressure_points": [
"narrow first pass versus broader stakeholder coverage",
"fast recap... | [
{
"label": "executive recap variant",
"rationale": "Acceptable when the summary compresses more aggressively but keeps the same blocker and next-step fidelity.",
"outputs": {
"summary_style": "shorter executive recap",
"followup_tone": "more concise and stakeholder-friendly"
}
},
{
... | [
{
"label": "fake consensus",
"why_bad": "Claims the team fully resolved the blocker when the transcript shows caution or deferral.",
"conflicting_rule": "The summary should preserve both decisions and unresolved blockers."
},
{
"label": "action drift",
"why_bad": "Drops owners or due dates a... | 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_0016 | train | medium | Zarn | meeting_actions | apache-2.0 | zarnite-team-reviewed-gold-track-starter | 0.91 | {
"brand": "Velora Motion",
"meeting_type": "vendor sync",
"meeting_date": "2026-04-22T00:00:00",
"channel": "Google Meet",
"objective": "Use the meeting to narrow the first deliverable for vendor sync without losing the proof or hiding blockers.",
"participants": [
{
"name": "Liam 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": "Liam Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"timestamp": "00:00",
"text": "We need a tighter plan for vendor sync. Right now the draft is too broad for the review window on 2026-04-22."
},
{
"speaker": "Nora 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 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": "Liam Rivera"
},
{
"decision": "Push the broader rollout to the next wave after the first scoped pass.",
"reason": "The team wants proo... | [
{
"owner": "Liam Rivera",
"role": "creative lead",
"task": "Revise the vendor sync brief around a proof-first recap.",
"due_date": "2026-04-23T00:00:00",
"depends_on": "None"
},
{
"owner": "Ethan Lopez",
"role": "editor",
"task": "Prepare the first scoped deliverable and note wha... | {
"email_subject": "Velora Motion 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 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": "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... |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
Zarn Meeting to Actions
Dataset Description
Meeting transcripts and notes mapped to summaries, decisions, owners, deadlines, and follow-up drafts.
Team Attribution
This dataset was created and reviewed by the Zarnite team through internal benchmark design, generation, and quality-control workflows. It should be presented as a Zarnite-authored benchmark starter pack, not as a purely human-collected field corpus.
Ecosystem Need Tier
High Ecosystem Need
Why This Category Is Attractive
Meeting data is useful across almost every business workflow, but strong public benchmarks still underserve realistic ownership, blocker capture, and follow-up quality.
Benchmark Goal
Evaluate whether a model can extract the real decisions, preserve unresolved tensions, and produce follow-up artifacts that sound consistent with the meeting.
Included In This Folder
data/train.jsonl,data/validation.jsonl,data/test.jsonl: starter benchmark splits with 1200 total rows.schema.json: JSON Schema for row validation.benchmark_spec.json: metrics, quality gates, and target release scale.LICENSE.md: folder-local license notice for self-contained publishing.PUBLISHING.md: repo-specific publish instructions for Hugging Face.hf_repo_template.json: machine-readable repo template used by the uploader script.
Target Public Scale
- Train: 18,000
- Validation: 2,000
- Test: 2,000
- Total target rows: 22,000
Recommended Metrics
action_item_f1summary_faithfulnessowner_accuracyfollowup_consistencyblocker_preservation
Gold-Track Benchmark Assets
ANNOTATION_GUIDELINES.md: how to expand rows without drifting from the benchmark purpose.REVIEW_PROTOCOL.md: how to audit validation and test rows with dual review and adjudication.BASELINE_EVAL_SPEC.json: expected output contract, slice reporting, and release thresholds.RELEASE_CHECKLIST.md: final pre-publish checks for the public Hugging Face release.SCORING_PROFILE.json: prediction keys, scoring expectations, and slice reporting requirements.prediction_template.jsonl: starter template for benchmark submissions or baseline runs.
Expanded Row Anatomy
pre_read_context: the notes and tensions in play before the meeting starts.transcript: a realistic multi-party discussion with tradeoffs and blocker handling.decision_tensions: what the team had to balance before arriving at the final decision.reference_followup_package: external recap, internal note, and risk-aware follow-up artifacts.difficulty_rationale: why the row belongs in its difficulty bucket instead of a weaker slice.benchmark_slices: named reporting slices such as approval friction, proof preservation, or citation traps.adversarial_features,expected_failure_modes, andreview_readiness: what the row is testing and how a gold-track reviewer should treat it.evidence_manifest,reference_variants, andnegative_examples: the source evidence boundary, acceptable alternate answers, and concrete failure cases.
Hugging Face Deployment
This folder is self-contained and can be uploaded as its own Hugging Face dataset repository.
- Suggested repo id:
zarnite/zarn-meeting-to-actions - Example upload command:
python upload_to_huggingface.py --dataset-folder "push/high-ecosystem-need/Zarn-Meeting-to-Actions" --repo-id "zarnite/zarn-meeting-to-actions" - You can swap the namespace by passing
--namespace YOUR_USERNAMEto the uploader.
Local Evaluation
- Example eval command:
python run_priority_eval.py --dataset-folder "push/high-ecosystem-need/Zarn-Meeting-to-Actions" --splits validation test prediction_template.jsonlgives the required output shape for local or leaderboard-style submissions.
License
This package is marked apache-2.0. The rows in this folder are original starter examples for benchmark packaging.
- Downloads last month
- 358