Overview
Each item is a long piece of work done on a full Ubuntu desktop across several applications and websites. It has two parts: a re-runnable task environment (initial world, fine-grained scorer, reference solution and wrong solutions), usable for RL; and an expert trajectory (Claude Opus 5.5 at max effort doing the whole task: every screenshot, reasoning summary and action), usable for SFT. All websites, people and business data in the tasks are fictional, and everything runs offline.
Challenge coverage
The seven samples cover all ten challenge types defined by OSWorld 2.0. A column number jumps to that sample.
| Challenge | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-source reasoning | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||
| Implicit-state inference | ● | ● | ● | ||||
| Multi-item state tracking | ● | ● | ● | ||||
| Conflict disambiguation | ● | ● | ● | ||||
| Dynamic environment | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |
| Proactive interaction | ● | ● | |||||
| Tutorial following | ● | ● | |||||
| Visual-spatial precision | ● | ||||||
| Multimodal editing | ● | ||||||
| Streaming interaction | ● |
What you get
<item>/
├── item.json # summary
├── task/
│ ├── task.json # request, persona, apps
│ ├── setup/ # initial-world generator
│ ├── checker/ # weighted checkpoints
│ ├── golden/ # reference and wrong solutions
│ ├── validation.json # scores of the reference and wrong solutions
│ ├── user.json # simulated user
│ ├── events.json # mid-task changes
│ └── services/ # task-specific websites (when needed)
└── trajectory/
├── steps.jsonl # per turn: reasoning summary, text, actions and results
├── img/ # every screenshot and zoomed view the agent received
├── traj/ # request-level API log: full context and response of every request
├── usersim_traj/ # simulated-user side (when the agent asked)
├── conversation.json # full conversation
├── result.json # run summary
├── final/ # final-state snapshot
├── check/result.json # per-checkpoint scores
└── score.json # score, commentary on the trajectory, per-turn annotations
env/ # shared: desktop image build files, self-hosted websites, reference harness
index.json # item overview
README.md # format and field reference- Environment: real applications run on an offline Ubuntu desktop; the self-hosted sites keep their state as JSON for the scorer to read.
- Isolation: the agent has no sudo and cannot read the scorer, the reference solution or the site state.
- User: the simulated user answers only from what the task gives it.
Samples
All seven trajectories below were run end to end by Claude Opus 5.5 at max effort. The frames are in turn order and are the trajectory’s own images: most are full screenshots, and the rest are regions the agent looked at with its zoom action. Click any frame to enlarge it and step through the sequence.
Sample 1 of 7
IT purchasing-card month-end close: reconcile, dispute the one real duplicate, apply a grant re-code
Theo Lindqvist, Director of Technology at Harrow Ridge Academy (a PreK‑12 day school in West Hartford, CT), asks the agent to do last month’s reconciliation of his Northbridge purchasing card ending 4417 for Controller Ruth Abernathy. Chrome is open on his Quillmail mailbox (about 155 messages across Inbox, Archive and Sent, including vendor invoices and receipts, Voyago travel receipts, a corrected invoice and old billing-contact threads), the Northbridge Commercial Card portal (his card and a help-desk card ending 9023, with authorization codes, statements and disputes) and the Hubbub team chat. Files is open at ~/Finance/IT with his IT budget workbook (Budget, Jul, Aug and YTD tabs) and a Receipts folder; the current card policy v3 sits in ~/Finance/Policy and an outdated FY26 policy in Downloads.
Why it is hard
Every row needs several sources at once (the bank portal, one of ~155 emails or local files, earlier tabs, the current policy), and stale look-alikes — a superseded invoice, an outdated policy, a colleague’s stale dispute offer, former vendor contacts — invite plausible mistakes. The consequential steps must all be right: choosing which of two identical $540 charges to dispute by authorization code, asking the user about the one unidentifiable charge, and carrying Ruth’s mid-task re-code through the tab, YTD flags and email.
The user’s request, verbatim
Hi - I'm buried this week and can't get to it, so please do last month's purchasing-card reconciliation for Ruth. It's my Northbridge IT card ending 4417; Priya's help-desk card ending 9023 isn't mine (she does her own). Add a tab for last month to my IT budget workbook in ~/Finance/IT, set up exactly like the earlier month tabs: one row per transaction on last month's statement, with the GL line, receipt reference and a short note. Receipts are in my Quillmail, including the Voyago receipts for the Denver conference flight and hotel. Code things the way the earlier months were coded, but follow the current card policy in ~/Finance/Policy. If anything was double-charged and hasn't already been fixed, dispute it with Northbridge and record the case number. Then roll the YTD tab forward through last month: the plan and actual figures, the reconciliation block at the bottom, and the variance commentary the way Ruth asked for it on Hubbub. For any invoice that never arrived, email that vendor's billing contact and ask for it. When it's all done, email Ruth the workbook as an attachment with the dispute case number, any coding changes and the open items. If you can't work out what a charge was, ask me. Ruth is reachable on Hubbub if anything comes up.
Apps and websites in the environment
What happens mid-task
Turn 50 The backordered OfficeMart toner ($64.99, ordered on the last day of last month) ships and posts to card 4417 with today’s post date, and the portal’s activity list refreshes live.
Turn 51 A new pending $12.00 NameGrid Domains authorization, dated today, appears on card 4417.
Turn 62 Controller Ruth Abernathy DMs Theo on Hubbub: the $4,860 Wrenfield laptop charging cart is funded by the Digital Literacy grant, so code it to grant line 6510-G instead of capital equipment (1610) and put award number DLG‑117 in the note.
Turn 203 The agent stops to ask the user, and the user answers.
The agent asks
I've found and checked every receipt but one, and filed the dispute for the duplicate Tessellate charge (case DSP-273300). Before I finish the September tab I need you to identify one charge. The charge: - Merchant: MKTPLACE*7H2K9 (Seattle, WA), filed by the bank as general merchandise - Transaction date 09/22/2026, posted 09/24 - Amount $86.40 - Bank reference 4728F0439361 What I checked: There's no order or receipt email for it in your Quillmail, including Archive and Spam. I searched "86.40", "marketplace" and "7H2K9". Nothing on Hubbub mentions it either. 1. What was it for? 2. Do you have a receipt, or should it go on the open-items list as MISSING? 3. If you don't recognize it, should I dispute it with Northbridge as unauthorized?
The user replies
It's legit: six USB-C to HDMI display adapters for the Middle School classrooms. I used guest checkout on my phone and never got the confirmation email, so there's no receipt. I'm fine signing the missing-receipt affidavit; handle it however the policy says, and don't dispute it.
Key moments of the trajectory
Initial desktop
Theo's Quillmail inbox in Chrome; the Northbridge card portal and the #it-team channel on Hubbub are in the other tabs.
Turn 25
The agent opened the Northbridge card portal's Statements page. It lists the September cycle statement for card 4417 (31 transactions, net $20,213.72) alongside the June to August statements and the statements for card 9023, which belongs to Priya Natarajan, a help-desk colleague.
Turn 58 (zoomed view)
The email thread with Tessellate support: their reply (ticket TS‑55120) says the second $540 charge, with authorization 004519, did not come from their billing system and should be disputed with the card issuer.
Turn 106
A Hubbub direct message from Ruth Abernathy, the Controller, that arrived mid-task. It asks to re-code the $4,860 Wrenfield laptop charging cart from capital equipment (1610) to the Digital Literacy grant line 6510-G and to put award DLG‑117 in the note.
Turn 113
While scrolling up the #it-team channel history for context on the September charges, the agent reaches a message from Priya, a help-desk colleague, telling the user, Theo, that Corvane charged his card twice on the 2nd and offering to open a dispute. Theo had replied that he would check with Corvane's billing first.
Turn 151
After checking the review page (duplicate charge, authorization 004519, $540.00), the agent submitted the dispute. The portal confirms the $540.00 dispute against TESSELLATE MEETINGS on card 4417, issues case DSP‑273300 and reports a $540.00 provisional credit as pending.
Turn 181
Having found no receipt for the charge in mail, and deciding to ask the user rather than guess, the agent searched the card portal's transactions for MKTPLACE. The only result is an $86.40 MKTPLACE*7H2K9 charge on card 4417 from Seattle (general merchandise, transaction date Sep 22, posted Sep 24).
Turn 235
The updated workbook open in LibreOffice: the YTD tab now runs through September, with 6310 (conferences and travel), 6410 (contracted services) and 6510-G (grant) flagged YES as more than 10% over plan.
Turn 239
The agent opened Quillmail's contacts to look up the Hollin and Larkspur billing contacts before writing the invoice requests. The address book is out of date: it still lists Dev Patel for Hollin and only the no-reply receipts@ mailbox for Larkspur; the current billing contacts the agent goes on to write to, Grace Petrakis (Hollin) and Mateo Ruiz (Larkspur), are not in it.
Turn 272
After a retry through the file dialog, the agent gets the workbook attached: the September reconciliation draft to Ruth (bottom right) now shows IT_Budget_FY27.xlsx (25 KB). The main pane shows the August reconciliation email from the Sent folder.
Turn 274
After sending the email to Ruth, the agent opened the Sent folder: at the top is the September reconciliation email to Ruth with the workbook attached, and below it are the two invoice requests.
Result
- Model turns
- 276
- Tool calls
- 1,451
- Minutes taken
- 290
- Screenshots
- 153
- Zoomed views
- 256
- Checkpoints
- 29
Workflow phases (6)
- Pin down scope and rules: read card policy v3 (not the outdated FY26 copy), the Jul/Aug tabs and Ruth’s Hubbub conventions, then take the 31 posted card‑4417 transactions from last month’s statement, leaving out pending, current-month and help-desk-card activity.
- Match each charge to its receipt in mail or the Receipts folder, preferring the corrected invoice and the September (close-month) documents over look-alikes; flag missing receipts and ask Theo about the one charge nothing explains.
- Code every row to a budget (GL) line from earlier-month precedents and the policy rules (per-unit capitalization, duplicates, the refunded Corvane charge), and apply Ruth’s mid-task grant re-code of the charging cart.
- Tell the two identical $540 Tessellate charges apart by authorization code, dispute only the duplicate with Northbridge, and record the case number on its disputed-charges (1290) row.
- Roll the YTD tab forward through last month: plan, actual and variance flags, commentary only on lines more than 10% over plan, and a reconciliation row that ties to the statement.
- Email the current billing contacts for the two missing invoices, then send Ruth the saved workbook with the case number, coding changes and open items.
Scores of the reference and wrong solutions
| Solution | Score |
|---|---|
| Reference solution | 1.00 |
| Initial state | 0.00 |
| Wrong: Uses the old pre-v3 dispute coding | 0.82 |
| Wrong: Ignores Ruth’s grant re-code | 0.72 |
| Wrong: Codes the tab, nothing else | 0.60 |
| Wrong: Also disputes the refunded Corvane charge | 0.49 |
| Wrong: Re-codes the closed August tab | 0.47 |
| Wrong: Disputes the genuine Tessellate charge | 0.45 |
| Wrong: Lists the wrong rows and disputes the Corvane charge | 0.23 |
| Wrong: Never saves the workbook | 0.17 |
Checkpoints (29)
- The IT budget workbook is saved in place (the same .xlsx file) with a new tab for the month being closed (September); the Budget tab and the earlier month tabs are left unchanged.
- Every transaction that posted to card 4417 in September has its own row (31 rows).
- The conference registration bought at the end of August but posted by the bank in September is included.
- The tab leaves out pending charges, items that posted in October, rows from Priya's card ending 9023 and the bank's provisional credits (temporary credits issued while a dispute is open).
- Each row's amount matches the bank's (the refund as a negative number), and the tab's total equals the statement total.
- The Receipt Ref column cites the correct receipt or invoice on the rows that have one (at least 25 of 26).
- The $2,640.00 Tallowbrook charge cites the corrected invoice INV‑2207-C, not the superseded original.
- Recurring monthly charges cite the September receipts, not identical-looking ones from other months (July/August or October).
- A missing receipt ('MISSING' or equivalent wording) is flagged on exactly three rows: Hollin $1,240, Larkspur $385 and the $86.40 marketplace charge; the $18.45 meal is marked as under $25 (no receipt required), not as missing.
- The MKTPLACE*7H2K9 charge is identified as display adapters (only Theo knows this) and coded to 6230 (supplies).
- The GL Line (general-ledger budget line) matches the expected coding on at least 29 of the 31 rows.
- Capitalization is judged per unit: the single $2,575 switch goes to 1610 (capital equipment), while the three $890 document cameras go to 6230 (supplies).
- The Hollin projector-lamp replacement is coded 6240 (repairs), not 6410 (contracted services).
- Under card policy v3, the disputed duplicate Tessellate charge is coded 1290 (disputed charges), while the genuine charge stays on 6210 (software and subscriptions) with receipt TM‑88412.
- Ruth's mid-task change is applied: the $4,860.00 laptop charging cart is on 6510-G (the grant-funded line) with award number DLG‑117 in the note.
- The already-refunded Corvane duplicate nets out: both $129.00 charges and the -$129.00 refund are on 6215 (cloud backup and hosting).
- Exactly one bank dispute is filed, as a duplicate charge, on a $540.00 Tessellate charge; none on the refunded Corvane charge or anything else.
- The disputed charge is the one with authorization code 004519 (not the one on receipt TM‑88412), and the dispute is still open.
- The case number the bank issued (DSP-…) is recorded on the 1290 (disputed charges) row of the charge that was actually disputed.
- The year-to-date (YTD) Plan column is rolled forward through September for all 9 budget lines.
- YTD Actual includes the September tab (leaving out 1290, the disputed-charges line) for all 9 budget lines.
- Variance % is correct and the 'Over 10%?' flag is set on exactly 6310 (conferences and travel), 6410 (contracted services) and 6510-G (grant).
- Variance commentary appears on the three flagged lines only: the August commentary on 6210 (software and subscriptions), now back within 10%, is cleared, and nothing is written for 1610 (capital equipment).
- The commentary explains each cause: the conference for 6310, the library cabling for 6410 and the grant-funded cart for 6510-G.
- The reconciliation row shows statement total $20,213.72 = budget lines $19,673.72 + disputed charges (1290) $540.00, with a difference of $0.00.
- The missing invoice is requested from Hollin's billing contact, Grace Petrakis, citing $1,240 and quote Q‑1185 or the charge date; half credit if Dev Patel (the former contact) or Hollin's field technician (Marcus Oyelaran), who did the lamp job, is also emailed.
- The missing invoice is requested from Larkspur's accounts-receivable contact, Mateo Ruiz, citing $385; half credit if the no-reply receipts@ mailbox is also emailed.
- The latest email to Ruth, sent after her update, that carries the workbook attaches the finished file with the cart on 6510-G (the grant line).
- The email(s) to Ruth after her update give the dispute case number, the cart's re-code to 6510-G with DLG‑117, and the open items (the invoices and receipt still missing).
Sample 2 of 7
Finish a TA's MARCXML grading through a mid-task answer-key correction
Canopy, the university’s learning management system, holds the LIS 5420 course: 16 students’ Assignment 4 submissions (three MARCXML catalog records each), a gradebook, the A4 item packet (scans of the three items: a book, a sheet map and an audio CD) in the course’s Assignments folder, and a hidden Instructor & TA folder with the rubric, answer key v1, an LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings) extract and TA Nadia Rahimi’s grading workbook, filled in for only 8 students. The syllabus and a later late-policy announcement give two different late rules. The mailbox of the instructor, Dr. Teresa Halvorsen, and the Hubbub team chat hold accommodation letters, extension requests and replies, a student’s emailed ‘fixed’ file and a Q&A thread about the map’s scale. Nadia has stopped to prepare for her qualifying exams, and Teresa needs the rest graded and returned to students this week.
Why it is hard
The values Nadia used for minor deductions exist only in her comments, and the sources conflict: the syllabus vs a later late-policy update, key v1 vs the map itself, students’ claims vs their actual letters and replies, and Canopy’s UTC times vs Central-time deadlines. Mid-grading, the answer key changes and the verdicts on 1:25,000 and 1:24,000 swap, including two of Nadia’s students whose wrong scale her comments never mention.
The user’s request, verbatim
Hi! I need you to finish grading Assignment 4 (original cataloging in MARCXML) for LIS 5420. Nadia got through the first 8 students before she had to stop and prep for her quals, and grades have to go back to students this week. Everything is on Canopy: the submissions, the gradebook, and the Instructor & TA folder with the rubric, the answer key, the LCSH extract and Nadia's workbook A4_grading.xlsx. Please grade the remaining submissions exactly the way Nadia has been grading: the rubric leaves the small deductions to the grader, and her comments are our record of how we've handled them. Apply the course's current late policy, and honour any accommodations or extensions I've approved. A file that isn't well-formed XML can't be graded: set it to 'Resubmission requested' in the gradebook with no score, and email that student the resubmission terms from the rubric plus the line where the parser fails. For everyone else, enter the A4 score in the Canopy gradebook with feedback that itemises each deduction, then post the grades. For Nadia's students, carry her comments over. Complete all 16 rows of A4_grading.xlsx (submission time in Central, record scores, raw, late days, penalty, final, status, comments) and upload it back to the Instructor & TA folder under the same name. If anything in Nadia's rows has to change, fix it and tell her in #lis5420-course-team on Hubbub which students' rows you changed and why. Please don't touch the other assignments.
Apps and websites in the environment
What happens mid-task
Turn 141 Nadia, the TA, uploads a corrected answer key, A4_key_v2.xml, to the hidden Instructor & TA folder in Canopy, noting that the map’s scale field (MARC 255) was corrected from the map margin.
Turn 142 Nadia posts in #lis5420-course-team, mentioning Teresa: key v1’s map scale came from the publisher’s web listing (1:24,000), but the map margin reads 1:25,000. She docked the first two students who wrote 1:25,000 and asks for all her record 2 scale calls to be re-checked against key v2.
Key moments of the trajectory
Initial desktop
The LIS 5420 course home in Canopy, whose To Do list shows 16 A4 submissions to grade; Teresa's Quillmail inbox and #lis5420-course-team on Hubbub are in the other tabs.
Turn 3
Canopy's 'Late-work policy update' announcement: late work loses 5% of the points per day or part of a day, capped at 15%.
Turn 60 (zoomed view)
The agent zooms in on a Hubbub Q&A thread: a student reports that the publisher's website lists the canoe map at 1:24,000 while the packet's map margin says 1:25,000. The instructor's reply says to transcribe from the resource itself.
Turn 77
The item packet text extracted in the terminal shows that the map sheet itself reads 'SCALE 1:25 000', so key v1's 1:24,000 is wrong.
Turn 94 (zoomed view)
After a Python well-formedness check over all submissions, the agent zooms in on the terminal output: only Petrakis (invalid token at line 153) and Whitfield (mismatched tag at line 39) fail.
Turn 144
The agent opens #lis5420-course-team and reads Nadia's post from turn 142: key v1's scale came from the publisher's listing, the map reads 1:25,000, and a corrected A4_key_v2.xml is now in the folder.
Turn 147
A terminal diff of A4_key_v1.xml and A4_key_v2.xml confirms that only the 255 scale statement (plus a comment) changed.
Turn 206
A row-by-row comparison of Nadia's original workbook with the updated one. Scores changed for Abernathy, Bergstrom, Brennan, Engstrom and Gallagher, while Chowdhury and Delgado have comment-only edits. The agent had suspected that Delgado's record 1 and record 2 scores were swapped; the comparison shows they were not.
Turn 209
After the agent confirms 'Post grades', the gradebook's A4 column is marked as posted and the other assignment columns are unchanged.
Turn 234
After the agent chooses Replace in the upload dialog, A4_grading.xlsx in the Instructor & TA folder shows version 3, uploaded by Teresa Halvorsen.
Turn 239
The report to Nadia is posted in #lis5420-course-team. It says Abernathy's and Brennan's scale deductions were removed, Bergstrom and Engstrom were docked for 1:24,000, and Gallagher's penalty was cut from 3 to 1.5 under the 5% policy. It notes that Chowdhury and Delgado had only comment edits and that Hoang is unchanged.
Result
- Model turns
- 240
- Tool calls
- 1,071
- Minutes taken
- 237
- Screenshots
- 184
- Zoomed views
- 80
- Checkpoints
- 28
Workflow phases (6)
- Collect the rules: the final rubric, Nadia’s deduction values from her comments, the late-policy update, and every accommodation, extension and student claim.
- Triage the 8 remaining files: two are not well-formed XML and go back for resubmission with the failing line. The rest are graded.
- Grade six students’ three MARCXML records each against the key and the LCSH extract, and count late days in US Central time.
- When Nadia posts corrected key v2, re-check every map-scale (MARC 255) call, including in her own rows, and fix her 10% late penalty.
- Enter scores and itemized feedback in Canopy, post the grades, send the two resubmission emails and upload the completed workbook.
- Tell Nadia in #lis5420-course-team which students’ rows changed and why.
Scores of the reference and wrong solutions
| Solution | Score |
|---|---|
| Reference solution | 1.00 |
| Initial state | 0.00 |
| Wrong: Penalizes authorized extra headings | 0.78 |
| Wrong: Uses stale draft rubric values | 0.56 |
| Wrong: Never posts or uploads | 0.50 |
| Wrong: Ignores the key correction | 0.46 |
| Wrong: Falls for every conflict | 0.46 |
| Wrong: Stops after triage only | 0.05 |
Checkpoints (28)
- Workbook late penalties follow the week‑2 late-policy update announcement (1.5 points per day, i.e. 5% of the 30-point assignment): Gallagher 1.5, Shaw 1.5, Rasmussen 3.0, and nobody else is penalized.
- Workbook late days are counted in US Central time: Shaw 1, Rasmussen 2, with no spurious late days for anyone else.
- Mwangi (accommodation) and Quintero (extension) carry no late penalty: workbook penalty 0, final score = their own raw score, and the gradebook matches the workbook.
- Rasmussen's exam-only accommodation is not applied to this assignment: penalty 3.0 (2 days late), final = his own raw score − 3.0, and the gradebook matches the workbook.
- Shaw (whose extension request was refused) is 1 day late in US Central time: penalty 1.5, final = her own raw score − 1.5, and the gradebook matches the workbook.
- The workbook's 'Submitted (CT)' column (submission time in US Central time) is filled in correctly for the 8 remaining rows.
- Petrakis and Whitfield are marked 'Resubmission requested' with no score, in both the gradebook and the workbook.
- The resubmission email to Elena Petrakis gives the line where the XML parser fails, the 72-hour window and the 85% score cap, and names no other student.
- The resubmission email to Jordan Whitfield gives the line where the XML parser fails, the 72-hour window and the 85% score cap, and names no other student.
- Lindahl's file fails XML schema validation but is still well-formed XML. It is graded with a score, not returned, and no resubmission is offered.
- The remaining students' scores for record 2 (the map) follow key v2: a scale of 1:25,000 is correct and 1:24,000 is docked.
- Raw scores (before late penalties) of the 6 newly graded students match the correct results.
- Takahashi is graded on her Canopy submission, not on the 'corrected' file she emailed. The slip in her record 1 publication field (MARC 264) is charged.
- Extra subject headings that the LCSH extract lists as authorized are not penalized. A heading in a non-preferred form (an LCSH 'USE' reference) costs 1 point. Record 2 cells are accepted under either key version.
- Nadia's per-field conventions are followed: two slips in one field cost −0.5 only once; each missing content/media/carrier type field (MARC 336–338) costs −1; a wrong record type code (Leader/06) costs −2. Record 2 is accepted under either key version.
- Nadia's deductions for the correct 1:25,000 scale (MARC 255 field) are removed: Abernathy's and Brennan's record 2 scores are corrected in the workbook, and the gradebook matches the workbook.
- Nadia's rows with the wrong 1:24,000 scale, visible only in the XML files, are now docked: Bergstrom and Engstrom have record 2 = 8 in the workbook, and the gradebook matches the workbook.
- Gallagher's late penalty under the old 10% rule is corrected: penalty 1.5, final = own raw score − 1.5, and the gradebook matches the workbook.
- Nadia's comments are carried over into the gradebook and corrected: the itemized deductions match the new scores, no stale 'pending key check' remarks remain, and the 10% late rule is no longer applied.
- Nadia's rows whose scores stay the same are carried over in both the workbook and the gradebook: Chowdhury 28.0, Delgado 28.5, Hoang 27.0.
- Outcome: students receive correct, posted A4 entries (14 final scores and 2 'Resubmission requested'). Scored as (correct posted − wrong posted)/16, floored at 0.
- Grading was entered: correct A4 entries are in the gradebook, whether posted or not.
- Gradebook feedback itemizes each deduction by record, field and points (and the late penalty).
- The completed A4_grading.xlsx is uploaded back to the Instructor & TA folder, with statuses for the 8 new rows and record scores for all 14 graded students.
- Final scores in the workbook equal the scores in the gradebook.
- The report to Nadia, answering her correction, names the 5 students whose scores changed and presents no unchanged row as changed.
- The message gives both reasons: the corrected map scale (MARC 255 field) in key v2, and the 5% late policy.
- A4 grades are posted. The other assignments (A1–A3) and the key and rubric files stay untouched, and no other student is offered a resubmission.
Sample 3 of 7
Build Lumeva's outdoor-ad deck with perspective-composited site mockups
Noor Haddad, an art director at the Manchester agency Halyard & Finch, is on a shoot all day; her Quillmail inbox holds creative director Callum’s request for the Lumeva out-of-home (OOH) final-layouts deck for Thursday’s client session (five layouts: three 48-sheet billboards and two 6-sheet posters). After he sent it, Lumeva’s legal team rejected Route B’s headline, senior copywriter Ines rewrote it and Callum agreed to use the new files. Her Cloudshelf drive holds the Lumeva finals (several versions of most layouts plus watermarked previews), Northlight’s site photos of the blank-posted poster panels, two versions of the creative brief, the media plan, current and retired agency templates, the studio mockup guide (current v2 plus an archived v1), the visualisation tag and an earlier Kestrel Coffee deck that sets the structure.
Why it is hard
Panel corners are given nowhere and must be read off each photo to within 4 px, with a lamp post kept in front and slide images placed to ±0.10 cm, while the right files must be picked despite a B headline that legal rejected and the agency rewrote, a superseded brief, look-alike site photos and a retired template. A client email arriving mid-task then changes the meeting slot, the recipients and the agenda.
The user’s request, verbatim
Callum needs the Lumeva OOH final-layouts presentation for Thursday's client session. I'm stuck on the Ottoline shoot all day, so can you take it end to end? His request is the 'Lumeva OOH — final layouts deck for Thursday' thread in my inbox. Read the whole thread before you pick any files, because things changed after he sent it. Everything else is on Cloudshelf. The finals, Northlight's site photos, the creative brief and the media plan are under Lumeva/OOH. The new agency template, the studio OOH mockup guide and our visualisation tag are under Agency. The Kestrel deck we presented is under Past work, and that's the structure Callum wants. Every layout gets a flat slide and an in-context slide. Composite each mockup onto its site photo in GIMP exactly as the guide says: corners, anything standing in front of the panel, the tag, full-size export and file names. Lay the slides out to the guide's measurements. Mockups go in Lumeva/OOH/Presentation/Mockups. The ODP and its PDF go in Lumeva/OOH/Presentation, named the guide's way. Then email the PDF to Hana at Lumeva with the agenda and the meeting time, cc Callum and Priya. Hana's been juggling diaries, so check for anything new from her before you send. Please don't change or delete anything in Finals, Photos, Agency or Past work.
Apps and websites in the environment
What happens mid-task
Turn 67 Hana, Lumeva’s brand manager, emails Priya and Noor, copying her VP Marisol Etxeberria: Marisol will join Thursday’s session, which moves to 15:00–16:00 for a full hour; the deck should go to Marisol too, and the 6-sheets need proper time.
Turn 72 Four minutes later, Priya confirms the invite has moved to Thursday 15:00–16:00 on Teams and says the agenda must now fill the hour, with more time on the 6-sheets.
Key moments of the trajectory
Initial desktop
Noor's Quillmail inbox holds 39 threads, with the Lumeva thread (Callum, Ines, 3 messages) on top. Further down are other clues the task needs, such as Callum's note that his C_v3_CDedits is the C going forward and an email saying the final media plan swaps MCR‑6S‑1203 for MCR‑6S‑1187, mixed in with mail about other accounts (Ottoline, Brindle) and newsletters.
Turn 4 (zoomed view)
The zoomed Lumeva thread shows senior copywriter Ines's follow-up: Lumeva's legal team rejected Route B's 'Better for you than juice', and _fix files carrying 'All the fizz. None of the sugar.' replace both B layouts. Below it, Callum agrees to use the _fix versions for both B files.
Turn 37
The Cloudshelf Finals folder lists several versions of most layouts, including multiple Route A revisions and the new _fix files. The agent settles on A_v4, B_v4_fix, C_v3_CDedits, 6S_A_v2 and 6S_B_v2_fix.
Turn 76
The agent opens Hana's mid-task message (delivered at turn 67), with Priya's confirmation below: the session moves to Thursday 15:00–16:00 on Teams, Lumeva's VP Marisol Etxeberria joins and should also get the deck, and the 6-sheets need proper time.
Turn 122
The agent's own check image, cropped from the Great Ancoats Street photo: the panel quad it detected (the red line is its top edge) follows the paper edge, and its magenta occluder mask covers the lamp post standing in front of the panel.
Turn 130
The Great Ancoats Street mockup in the image viewer. The Route C artwork sits in perspective on the panel, and the lamp post stays in front of it.
Turn 172 (zoomed view)
A rendered preview of the timeline slide shows the brief-v3 milestones, but the 'Legal & claims sign-off' label breaks awkwardly at the hyphen; at turn 186 the agent moves 'sign-off' to its own line and re-renders the slide.
Turn 188
In Impress, slide 4 is the flat slide for 48-sheet Layout A, on the Halyard26 Content master; the artwork's Position and Size dialog reads x 1.50 cm, y 4.45 cm, 16.00 × 8.00 cm. That is exactly the 2:1 artwork fitted and centered in the guide's 16.00 × 10.50 cm area.
Turn 209
After upload, Cloudshelf's Lumeva/OOH/Presentation/Mockups folder holds the five correctly named mockup PNGs.
Turn 228
After the first attach attempt fails to register and the agent re-attaches, the compose window shows the deck PDF attached exactly once (3.1 MB). The email goes to Hana and the newly added Marisol, cc Callum and Priya. The body has the new time (Thursday, October 15, 15:00–16:00 on Teams) and a 60-minute agenda with 20 minutes for the 6-sheets and 15 for the 48-sheets.
Turn 230
The Sent folder shows the cover email to Hana and Marisol, sent at 9:00 with the PDF attached.
Result
- Model turns
- 231
- Tool calls
- 969
- Minutes taken
- 200
- Screenshots
- 199
- Zoomed views
- 65
- Checkpoints
- 29
Workflow phases (5)
- Read the whole thread and cross-check brief v3, the media plan, guide v2 and the Kestrel deck to pick the approved finals (including the B headline rewritten after legal rejected it) and the booked sites’ day photos.
- Composite the five artworks onto their site photos in GIMP: perspective-fit to the panel’s inner corners, keep the lamp post in front, add the visualisation tag, export at native size with the guide’s file names.
- Build the 14-slide deck on the current agency template: a flat and an in-context slide per layout, sized to the guide, with headlines, captions and rationale bullets.
- Save the ODP, export the PDF and upload the deck, PDF and mockups to the right Cloudshelf folders.
- Check for Hana’s latest update, then email only the PDF to Hana and to Marisol, the VP who has joined the session, with the new meeting time and a timed agenda, cc Callum and Priya.
Scores of the reference and wrong solutions
| Solution | Score |
|---|---|
| Reference solution | 1.00 |
| Initial state | 0.00 |
| Wrong: Retired template, no PDF | 0.89 |
| Wrong: Ignores the meeting update | 0.88 |
| Wrong: Juice line, wrong site photos | 0.80 |
| Wrong: Corners off, lamp post covered | 0.71 |
| Wrong: Only the mockups done | 0.39 |
| Wrong: Nothing uploaded or sent | 0.00 |
Checkpoints (29)
- The Presentation/Mockups folder holds the five correctly named mockup PNGs and no other image or GIMP working (XCF) files.
- Each mockup is built on the full-size daytime photo of its booked site and is unchanged outside the panel and the tag.
- 48-sheet (large billboard) mockups: every artwork corner lies within 4 px of the panel's inner corner.
- 6-sheet (poster-size) mockups: every artwork corner lies within 4 px of the panel's inner corner.
- No artwork spills onto the frame, the glass edge or the surroundings.
- The artwork covers the whole blank panel face (at least 97%).
- Each mockup shows the approved full-resolution version (A_v4, B_v4_fix, C_v3_CDedits, 6S_A_v2, 6S_B_v2_fix), not a superseded or exploratory version or a preview.
- Both Route B mockups carry the new headline Ines rewrote (not the juice line legal rejected).
- On the Great Ancoats Street site, the lamp post stays in front of the artwork.
- Each mockup has exactly one visualisation tag (the label marking it as a mockup), at 100% size, 48 px from the left and bottom edges, with none at the old bottom-right position.
- The deck file Lumeva_AutumnOOH_FinalLayouts_2026-10-15.odp (an OpenDocument presentation) is in Lumeva/OOH/Presentation, with 14 slides in the guide's running order.
- Every slide uses the right Halyard slide master from the agency template (title, content or image).
- The flat slides embed the approved full-resolution artworks (48-sheets A–C, 6-sheets A–B).
- The in-context slides embed the matching site mockups.
- Each flat artwork is fitted proportionally and centered in the 16.00 × 10.50 cm artwork area (±0.10 cm), with no cropping or distortion.
- Each mockup is fitted proportionally and centered in the 25.00 × 12.00 cm hero area (±0.10 cm), with no cropping or distortion.
- The flat slides carry the headline as it appears on the artwork (for Route B, the approved headline).
- The in-context slides carry a visualisation caption with the booked site's code.
- The flat slides have a 'Why it works' column of 2–3 bullets taken from brief v3 (for Route B, no juice comparison).
- Slide titles are in place: Objective, Insight, a flat and an in-context title per layout, and Timeline & next steps.
- The deck contains no juice line, Kestrel leftovers, template placeholder tokens, guidance slide or gray area boxes.
- The title slide names Lumeva and the meeting date; the Objective slide states the 21% → 27% awareness goal; the Insight slide quotes brief v3.
- The timeline uses brief v3's key dates (any four of approval, legal sign-off, print-ready, posting and live) and none of brief v2's.
- Lumeva_AutumnOOH_FinalLayouts_2026-10-15.pdf is exported to the Presentation folder (14 pages, 16:9, matching the deck).
- The client email is sent after the VP update, with Hana in To and Callum and Priya copied.
- Marisol, the VP who joined the session, also receives the deck (in To or Cc).
- The email has exactly one attachment: the 14-page deck PDF (never the ODP, and no PNG or XCF files).
- The email states Thursday, the meeting date and the new 15:00–16:00 slot, and does not present the old 14:30 slot as current.
- The email includes a timed agenda totalling 60 minutes, with extra time on the 6-sheets.
Sample 4 of 7
Trace six ERP report-timeout tickets to SQL and ship a compliant fix
Priya Raghunathan, the on-duty PostgreSQL DBA at Ridgeline Wholesale Supply, is stuck in the period‑9 (P09) close war room and hands the agent her queue of six help-desk tickets about ERP reports timing out. VS Code and a terminal are open on the erp-reports git repository (15 report SQL files, a report registry, migrations V001–V042, two linters, house conventions and earlier triage sheets), a file browser shows a fresh PGLens performance export with statement timings, query plans and history, and Chrome has the Ticketry help desk’s DBA queue and the Hubbub team chat open. In Hubbub’s #dba-team channel, lead DBA Anders Lindqvist has pinned the close-week rules; the channel also holds a stale message from the previous close and Priya’s last wrap-up.
Why it is hard
Nothing in the request says which fixes are allowed or how they must be recorded, so the agent has to stitch together tickets that quote only menu labels, a registry of near-identical report names, a PGLens export full of decoy query ids, a regression hidden in a ‘simplify’ commit, and house conventions scattered across the repo, the knowledge base and past tickets. Midway, developer Jorge’s PR #212 news invalidates the migration number, one tempting index, the lint result and one ticket’s plan, while the 02:30 window pinned in #dba-team has to win over a stale 20:00 one from the last close.
The user’s request, verbatim
I'm stuck in the P09 close war-room call, so I need you to run my queue. There are six open tickets tagged period-close in the DBA group in Ticketry: finance, sales and warehouse people saying ERP reports time out. Figure out what is actually behind each one. This desktop can't reach PGLens or prod, so Oluwaseun pulled a fresh PGLens export for me (statements, captured plans, history, table stats) into ~/pglens-export. The reports repo is at ~/work/erp-reports, already open in VS Code. Whatever is ours to fix, ship it the way we always do: a dba/ branch off main, lint clean, committed locally. Don't push and don't touch main; I'll open the PR myself. Add the P09 triage sheet under perf/ next to the earlier ones. Then update every one of the six tickets the way the DBA queue runbook in the Ticketry knowledge base says, and post the usual wrap-up in #dba-team so Anders can review it for tonight's window. Read Anders's pinned close-week rules in #dba-team before you write any SQL; they are not optional. You're acting as me on this today, so whatever you decide or post goes out under my name. If you really need me, ask me here and I'll answer when I can.
Apps and websites in the environment
What happens mid-task
Turn 59 Developer Jorge Villanueva posts in #dba-team, mentioning Priya, that his approved PR #212 already carries migration V043 with an invoices(customer_id, due_date) index, and asks the DBA not to ship an invoices(customer_id …) hotfix index, to take V044 and to reserve V043.
Key moments of the trajectory
Initial desktop
The DBA queue in Ticketry: eight open tickets, six tagged period-close; #dba-team on Hubbub is in the second tab.
Turn 3 (zoomed view)
Zoomed view of the pinned P09 close-week rules from the lead DBA, Anders Lindqvist, in #dba-team. stock_movements may only get partial indexes, and hotfix indexes are built CONCURRENTLY with one key column. All of them go in one daily migration on a dba/ branch with clean lint. A report change that broke index use is fixed in the SQL, and fixes ship in tonight's 02:30 window.
Turn 79 (zoomed view)
The agent reads developer Jorge Villanueva's mid-task message in #dba-team (posted at turn 59): his approved PR #212 already adds migration V043 with an invoices(customer_id, due_date) index. He asks Priya not to add a near-duplicate, to use V044 for today's hotfix, and to reserve V043.
Turn 82 (zoomed view)
An accidental click had added a ✅ reaction in Priya's name to the pinned rules, so the agent clicked it again to remove it. The zoomed view shows the count back at 1, as at turn 3.
Turn 122
The terminal shows commit 3c643c3 (PR #209). Along with the new territory rollup, the half-open range on order_date was replaced by a date_trunc comparison on the column. This explains the full scan behind the Sales by Region timeouts.
Turn 141
The agent has appended the V043 reservation for PR #212 to migrations/RESERVED and written the V044 migration. Both repository linters now pass (43 migration files, 15 reports).
Turn 147
The P09 triage sheet perf/triage_P09.csv parses with nine fields per row and is committed on its own, after the fix commits. The branch log shows four commits.
Turn 172
The P09 close wrap-up, posted in #dba-team shortly before midnight and mentioning Anders. It names branch dba/p09-close-fixes @ 806c330 and the V044 migration file, and lists each ticket with its report and query id. It also has a not-shipping line and tells Jorge that V043 is reserved for PR #212.
Turn 182
Ticket #6423 (Customer Statement) after submission. It is in Pending status with the waiting-on-dev tag and a plain-language reply that points to PR #212.
Turn 188
Ticket #6427 (Inventory Valuation export) after submission. An internal note gives the INV‑008 query id and its 1.8-second mean, and the ticket is tagged not-db. Its group is changed to ERP App Support, and the status stays Open.
Turn 198
Final terminal check. dba/p09-close-fixes is four commits ahead of main and not pushed, and main still matches origin/main. Both linters pass, and only the pre-existing scratch file is untracked.
Result
- Model turns
- 203
- Tool calls
- 789
- Minutes taken
- 173
- Screenshots
- 165
- Zoomed views
- 65
- Checkpoints
- 32
Workflow phases (5)
- Intake: read the six tickets, the runbook and the pinned close-week rules, and map each ticket’s menu label to a report and its live statement.
- Diagnose: use query plans, timing history, git history and migrations to find each cause and choose a disposition.
- Build on a new dba/ branch: one hotfix migration plus a rewrite of the report whose changed filter can no longer use its index (Sales by Region), both linters clean.
- Absorb the PR #212 update: renumber to V044, reserve V043, re-lint and commit, then commit the triage sheet separately.
- Close the loop: update all six tickets per the runbook and post the wrap-up in #dba-team.
Scores of the reference and wrong solutions
| Solution | Score |
|---|---|
| Reference solution | 1.00 |
| Initial state | 0.00 |
| Wrong: Puts the triage sheet in the fix commit | 0.997 |
| Wrong: Promises stale 20:00 window | 0.92 |
| Wrong: Never commits the triage sheet | 0.91 |
| Wrong: Reverts #209, dropping the rollup | 0.90 |
| Wrong: Leaves all work uncommitted | 0.68 |
| Wrong: Commits straight onto main | 0.62 |
| Wrong: Ignores Jorge’s PR #212 update | 0.61 |
| Wrong: Picks the wrong items | 0.61 |
| Wrong: Stops with work unfinished | 0.41 |
Checkpoints (32)
- Exactly one new database migration file exists, numbered V044, and no V043 file is present.
- The migration creates the partial index (an index over only some rows) on invoices(due_date) for unpaid invoices, named per the house convention.
- The migration creates the partial index on stock_movements(item_id) for unposted rows, named per the house convention.
- The migration holds exactly the two allowed indexes and nothing else: no invoices(customer_id …) index next to the one in PR #212, and no full (all-rows) or covering (extra-column) index.
- Each CREATE INDEX statement is directly followed by its matching rollback comment (a line saying how to drop the index again), the line that rule M006 of the migration linter requires.
- Migration number V043 is reserved for PR #212 in the migrations/RESERVED file.
- Both of the repository's linters (one for migrations, one for reports) pass on the delivered files, without any tampering with the lint tools.
- The Sales by Region query (sales_by_region.sql) filters the month with a half-open range (from the start of the month up to, but not including, the start of the next) on the bare order_date column, with no function wrapped around it, bounded by the :month parameter truncated to the month; it also keeps the territory rollup added by PR #209 and the report's filters. A plain revert of #209, or a rewrite that drops the rollup the Sales by Region requester (Dana, ticket #6415) asked to keep, earns nothing.
- Counts only if the Sales by Region rewrite checkpoint above passes: the report's interface is kept (the rpt tag that names the report still comes first, and the parameters are still month and region_id) and no other report or the report registry (registry.yaml) changes.
- The work is committed on a new dba/ branch created from main, and main itself is untouched.
- The branch changes only the expected files (no scratch dump or PGLens export files swept in).
- The P09 triage sheet (perf/triage_P09.csv) exists with the house column header (as in the earlier sheets) and one row per ticket.
- Each ticket is mapped to the right report id (the code the report registry uses, such as SAL‑004).
- Each ticket is mapped to the right live statement (the query id PGLens currently records for that report).
- Each ticket carries the correct action, in the triage sheet's fixed vocabulary.
- The sheet's reference column points at real artifacts, such as the migration file or the fix commit's hash.
- The primary accounts-receivable (AR) Aging ticket gets a reply and is parked in Pending status with the fix-scheduled tag.
- The Open Orders Backlog ticket gets a reply and is parked in Pending status with the fix-scheduled tag.
- The later AR Aging ticket is closed as a duplicate of the earliest one.
- The Customer Statement ticket gets a public reply pointing to PR #212 and is parked in Pending status with the waiting-on-dev tag.
- The Inventory Valuation export ticket is handed to the ERP App Support team with query evidence and a public handover reply.
- The Sales by Region ticket gets a reply and is parked in Pending status with the fix-scheduled tag.
- No ticket other than the six was modified.
- The wrap-up in #dba-team names the actual migration file, branch and commit.
- The wrap-up maps each ticket to its report and its live query.
- The reviewer (lead DBA Anders) is told that migration number V043 is held for PR #212.
- The replies on the fix-scheduled tickets and the duplicate's pointer reply give the 02:30 window pinned in #dba-team, never the stale 20:00 from the previous close (P08, period 8).
- The final reply on ticket #6423 (Customer Statement) says when PR #212 goes live and does not promise a fix tonight.
- The public reply on ticket #6427 (Inventory Valuation) says the export is the problem and that the ERP App Support team has it now.
- Public replies on the six tickets use plain language: no query ids, index names or SQL.
- Each triage-sheet row's root_cause column names the actual cause.
- The wrap-up says what is not shipping (the Customer Statement index is left to PR #212).
Sample 5 of 7
Wedding hotel rooms, airport arrivals and visa sheet for seven relatives
Sade Brennan, mother of the groom, is hosting seven relatives flying in from Nigeria for her son Tobi’s wedding, and the hotel’s wedding room block is about to close. Her Quillmail inbox holds their e-tickets and passport details, an earlier and a corrected email from Priya at Larkfield Manor about the wedding rate, a photo of the new passport of Emeka (her sister Lara’s husband), a forwarded revised itinerary for Lara and Emeka’s two sons, and notes from Lara on rooms and payment, scattered among dozens of unrelated emails (other wedding planning, bills, church, book club). The machine also has the Innlet hotel booking site with her saved card and her own existing booking, her Daywise calendar with a now-outdated airport pickup, and a starter Family_Travel_Sheet.xlsx in Documents/Wedding that was begun from the guest list and contains errors.
Why it is hard
The sources contradict each other: a promo code given by mistake versus the corrected group code, an original versus a revised itinerary, an old versus a new passport, guest-list nicknames versus passport names. The wedding block is also one room short, a gap only Sade can decide how to close. The Innlet booking flow is live and punishes careless clicks: rate rows re-order, a room hold expires and resets the rate, and pre-ticked add-ons and pop-ups appear where the ‘Confirm booking’ button sits.
The user’s request, verbatim
I need to get my family's rooms for Tobi and Hannah's wedding sorted today, before the hotel's wedding block closes. Mum and Dad, Auntie Yetunde, Lara and Emeka, and the two boys are all flying in from Nigeria. Their tickets and passport details are in my Quillmail inbox, along with Priya's emails from Larkfield Manor about the wedding rate and Lara's notes about rooms and paying. Please book the rooms at Larkfield Manor on Innlet: a room for Mum and Dad, a single for Auntie Yetunde, a double for Lara and Emeka, and a twin for Dubem and Kelechi. Each party stays from the day they land until Monday morning after the wedding (they come to ours after that). I want the wedding rate for every room and every night it covers. Guest names must be exactly as in their passports, because the confirmations go into their visa applications. Mum and Dad's room and Auntie's are on me - put them on my saved card. Then: 1. Put each party's arrival in my Daywise calendar at the landing time, with the flight number and terminal in the title, and invite Declan - he's doing the airport runs. 2. Correct and complete Family_Travel_Sheet.xlsx in Documents/Wedding (save it in place). I started it from Tobi's guest list, so check everything. I'll write the visa letters from the Travellers tab, and the Rooms tab should show one line per booking, what goes on my card and what Lara and Emeka pay. 3. Email each party their booking reference(s), dates and who is paying what, with the Innlet confirmation PDF(s) attached. Also do whatever Priya's email asks us to send the hotel. I'm around if anything needs my say-so - just ask.
Apps and websites in the environment
What happens mid-task
Turn 139 The agent stops to ask the user, and the user answers.
The agent asks
Before I can finish the bookings I need your decision on two things: 1. Innlet terms tick-box. The last checkout step requires ticking "I agree to the booking conditions, the property's house rules and Innlet's Terms of booking." Is it OK for me to tick it on each booking? 2. The wedding block doesn't have enough rooms. Innlet shows only 3 block rooms left, but the family needs 4. Priya says the block can't be extended, so one room has to go on a normal rate. Mum and Dad's Garden Accessible Double stays on the wedding rate whichever you choose (4 nights, £580 on your Visa 4417). The choices for the fourth room: Option · Room on normal rate · Wedding rate · Flexible rate · Extra · Who pays a · Auntie's single, Fri 18 – Mon 21 · £375 · £504 · +£129 · you b · Lara and Emeka's double, Fri 18 – Mon 21 · £435 · £567 · +£132 · Lara and Emeka c · Boys' twin for their whole stay, Wed 16 – Mon 21, as one reservation · £769* · £945 · +£176 · Lara and Emeka *Wed night £189 on Flexible plus 4 block nights at £580. - Option a: there's also a cheaper Advance Saver rate at £447, but it's pay-now and non-refundable. - Option c: the boys keep one room with no link for Priya to set up. Which option would you like? Also, Dubem's revised itinerary has the boys landing on Wed 16 Dec (AG 409, 19:45, T4). That night is outside the block. Unless you pick option c, I'll book it as a separate Flexible reservation (£189, paid at the hotel by Lara and Emeka). Then I'll reply to Priya with both references so the hotel can link them, as her email asks. All four arrivals are already in your Daywise calendar with Declan invited. I moved the boys' existing pickup to the new flight.
The user replies
Yes, tick it on each booking. Oh, that's annoying. Put Auntie Yetunde's single on the normal Flexible rate (not the Advance Saver) and make it pay at the hotel, not on my card; she's been insisting on paying for her own room, so let her pay for that one herself. Keep Mum and Dad, Lara and Emeka, and the boys on the wedding rate, don't change who shares, don't move anyone to another hotel, and leave my and Declan's room alone. And yes, the boys need the Wednesday night now, so book it the way Priya said.
Key moments of the trajectory
Initial desktop
The desktop as the agent first sees it: Sade's Quillmail inbox with 73 messages, where the boys' itinerary change, Emeka's new-passport photo and the hotel's CORRECTION email sit among other wedding mail and messages from the book club, church and bank. Innlet and her Daywise calendar are open in the other two tabs.
Turn 15 (zoomed view)
Zoomed view of the correction email from Priya at Larkfield Manor, the hotel holding the wedding room block. The group code is LMH-BRENNAN for the nights of Thursday 17 to Sunday 20 December, at £125 a night for a single or £145 a night for a double, twin or accessible room. The 12-room block cannot be extended. Any night outside it needs a separate Flexible booking, and both booking references must be sent to her so the hotel can link them.
Turn 45 (zoomed view)
Zoomed view of the revised Atlas Gulf itinerary forwarded by nephew Dubem. The boys now fly AG 780 to Doha and AG 409 into Heathrow Terminal 4, landing at 19:45 on Wednesday 16 December. The document says it supersedes all earlier itineraries and that the original AG 782 / AG 417 flights of 16–17 December were canceled.
Turn 93
In Daywise the stale Thursday pickup is being edited into 'Collect Dubem & Kelechi - AG 409, LHR T4' on Wednesday 16 December at 19:45, with a new description citing the revised itinerary. Declan, Sade's husband, is already listed as a guest on the event.
Turn 117
On Larkfield Manor's Innlet page, applying LMH-BRENNAN for Thursday to Monday shows the wedding block has only 3 rooms left. The family needs 4 rooms with block nights.
Turn 135
In a new tab the agent prices Auntie Yetunde's single for 18–21 December: £375 on the wedding rate, £504 Flexible and £447 Advance Saver. The parents' checkout, not yet confirmed, stays open in the 'Complete your booking' tab while the agent collects these prices for the question it means to put to Sade.
Turn 141
The parents' checkout after Sade's answer: when the agent scrolled up, a notice said the 15-minute hold had expired and prices had refreshed, switching the booking from the wedding rate to Flexible and removing the group code. It asks for LMH-BRENNAN to be entered again on the Payment step, while the page behind it still shows the old £580 wedding-rate summary.
Turn 181
The click meant for 'Confirm booking' on the boys' block twin landed on a pop-up toast and opened Innlet's Deals page instead. The address bar reads deals?from=toast, showing that the click followed a link in the toast.
Turn 213
Innlet's My trips page after the last booking, which the agent opened to check that all five bookings were there. The five new family bookings are listed with their references, dates, guests, rates and payment status (the parents' room paid, the others to pay at the hotel), and the Upcoming count of 6 means Sade and Declan's own room is also listed further down.
Turn 259 (zoomed view)
Zoomed view of the Rooms tab of Family_Travel_Sheet.xlsx, now one line per booking. The agent has just entered the three totals as formulas (SUMIF by payer for Sade's card and for Lara and Emeka, and a plain SUM for all rooms); the cells read 580, 1204 and 2288, in pounds as the row labels say.
Turn 305
Quillmail's Sent folder shows the five emails: to Dad, Auntie Yetunde, Lara and Emeka, and the two boys, plus the reply in Priya's correction thread giving both twin references and asking her to link them.
Result
- Model turns
- 313
- Tool calls
- 1,742
- Minutes taken
- 290
- Screenshots
- 266
- Zoomed views
- 95
- Checkpoints
- 28
Workflow phases (6)
- Read the inbox, attachments, starter workbook and calendar; reconcile passport names and numbers, flights, nights, payers and the hotel’s corrected code.
- Check the wedding block on Innlet, find it one room short, and ask Sade how to handle it.
- Make the five bookings on the live Innlet page with the right rate, payment and guest names; download the confirmation PDFs.
- Add four arrival events in Daywise with flight and terminal, invite Declan, and clear the stale pickup.
- Correct the Travellers tab, complete the Rooms tab with totals, and save the xlsx in place.
- Email each party its references, dates, payer and PDFs, and send the hotel the references Priya asked for.
Scores of the reference and wrong solutions
| Solution | Score |
|---|---|
| Reference solution | 1.00 |
| Initial state | 0.00 |
| Wrong: Workbook never saved | 0.85 |
| Wrong: Accepts add-ons, wrong payment | 0.78 |
| Wrong: Never asks; wrong payer | 0.74 |
| Wrong: Uses guest-list names and old passport | 0.74 |
| Wrong: Misses the revised itinerary | 0.72 |
| Wrong: Never asks; guesses shortfall fix | 0.67 |
| Wrong: Stops after the bookings | 0.56 |
Checkpoints (28)
- Mum and Dad's room is the Garden Accessible Double, Thursday to Monday, booked on the wedding block (the hotel's group code LMH-BRENNAN) for £580.
- The parents' room is paid now on Sade's saved Visa card ending 4417.
- The parents' accessible-room booking includes a request for a room near the lift or on the ground floor.
- Sade's answer to the block shortfall is followed: Auntie Yetunde's Classic Single, Friday to Monday, is on the Flexible rate, pay at the hotel, £504.
- Lara and Emeka's Classic Double, Friday to Monday, is on the wedding block, pay at the hotel, £435, with Lara as lead guest.
- The nephews' Classic Twin, Thursday to Monday, is on the wedding block, pay at the hotel, £580.
- A separate Classic Twin booking covers the extra Wednesday night outside the block (Wednesday to Thursday) on the Flexible rate, pay at the hotel, £189, following the revised itinerary.
- Guest names on the bookings match the passports exactly (surname spelled NWACHUKWU, full given names).
- Exactly five active new bookings exist: none uses the LARK10 newsletter promo code or the prepaid Advance Saver rate, there are no extras and no duplicates, and Sade's own room is untouched.
- Net new charges to the Visa card ending 4417 are exactly £580 (only Mum and Dad's room, after Sade's decision).
- The parents' arrival event starts at flight MA 302's landing time on Thursday, has the flight number in the title and gives Heathrow Terminal 3.
- Auntie's arrival event starts at flight HR 571's landing time on Friday, has the flight number in the title and gives Gatwick North Terminal.
- Lara and Emeka's arrival event starts at flight MA 302's landing time on Friday, has the flight number in the title and gives Heathrow Terminal 3.
- The nephews' arrival event starts at the revised flight AG 409's landing time on Wednesday, has the flight number in the title and gives Heathrow Terminal 4.
- No stale Thursday pickup for the superseded flight AG 417 remains in the calendar.
- Declan is invited to every arrival event.
- Travellers tab: names exactly as in the passports and correct passport numbers (including Emeka's new number B50031947 and Yetunde's B01446372).
- Travellers tab: arrival date, final-leg flight, landing time and terminal for all seven travellers.
- Travellers tab: room, check-in date, check-out date and booking reference(s) for each traveller (both twin references for the boys).
- Travellers tab: Mum's wheelchair need and accessible room are recorded, and who pays is shown for each traveller.
- Rooms tab: one row per booking with the matching reference, dates, nights, rate plan, total, payment method and payer.
- Rooms tab totals: £580 on Sade's card, £1,204 for Lara and Emeka, £2,288 for all rooms.
- An email to Dad gives the accessible double's booking reference and attaches its confirmation PDF.
- An email to Auntie Yetunde gives her booking reference, attaches the PDF and says she pays £504 at the hotel.
- An email to Lara gives the double's booking reference, attaches the PDF and says what they pay at the hotel.
- An email to the boys gives both twin booking references and attaches both PDFs.
- An email to Priya at the hotel gives both twin booking references and asks for them to be linked.
- No email attaches Sade's own confirmation or another party's PDF, or quotes a canceled booking reference.
Sample 6 of 7
Hereditary cancer panel prior authorization from reconciled family history, plus deposit refund
Genetic counselor Maren Holloway wants Lena Marchetti’s prior authorization (PA) for a hereditary cancer gene panel submitted today, along with the deposit refund, tracker entry and patient email. The desktop holds Lena’s patient folder (intake questionnaire, the counselor’s shorthand session notes, a referral, the self-pay deposit form) and practice files: an 8-page PA & Billing Guide, two revisions of the insurer’s genetic testing policy, a letter template with an old example letter, a lab test menu and a PA tracker spreadsheet. The Quillmail mailbox has Lena’s email with family-history corrections and a sideways phone photo of her mother’s pathology report; the Bellwater Provider Connect insurer portal and the practice’s Northbridge bank account are open in Chrome.
Why it is hard
The panel Lena chose is written nowhere and the documents point to the wrong one, so the agent has to ask and cannot guess. The correct facts are scattered across a form, shorthand notes, an email and a rotated scan, with traps such as a superseded policy revision, a terminated member ID and a same-surname patient saved as a bank payee.
The user’s request, verbatim
Hi! I saw Lena Marchetti yesterday - she's 38, no cancer herself, but a lot on her mom's side - and I'd like her genetic testing prior auth in to Bellwater today. I'm stuck in back-to-back patient sessions, so please run it end to end. Her intake questionnaire, my session notes and the referral are in ~/Patients/Marchetti_Lena, and last night she emailed me corrections from her mom plus her mom's pathology report. Please pull the family history together properly, check her against Bellwater's current genetic testing policy, write the letter of medical necessity from our template (Dr. Ferreira's /s/ e-signature, as the guide describes) and submit the PA in Bellwater Provider Connect with everything they'll want. Then add it to the PA tracker, settle the self-pay deposit Priya took at scheduling through our Northbridge account the way our billing policy says, and email Lena the confirmation. How we do all of this is in our PA & Billing Guide in ~/Practice/Guides. If something is genuinely unclear, message me - I can answer between patients.
Apps and websites in the environment
What happens mid-task
Turn 109 The agent stops to ask the user, and the user answers.
The agent asks
I've gathered everything needed except one decision. Lena's email doesn't say which panel they chose, so I need to check with you before submitting. Quick question on Lena Marchetti's PA: which panel should I request? Last night Lena wrote: "Daniel and I talked it over and we're ready to go ahead with the testing through insurance!" She didn't name a panel. "Through insurance" rules out CompCa-84, which is self-pay. Your session notes left two options open: "20 or 28 both ok clinically, both covered… If not 84 -> prob BOG-20." - BOG-20 BreastGyn Core Panel (CG-2104), 20 genes, CPT 81432, 81433 - BOP-28 Breast-Ovarian-Pancreatic Panel (CG-2128), 28 genes, CPT 81432, 81433. This is BOG-20 plus pancreatic genes such as CDKN2A/CDK4, SMAD4 and PRSS1. What may matter for the choice: her mom's corrections confirm Grandpa Carlo had pancreatic adenocarcinoma (diagnosed at 71, died at 72, per his death certificate), not stomach cancer. Both panels are under Bellwater's 30-gene limit for unaffected members (MP-GEN-014 Rev 7, §4.2, effective 7/27/2026). With the corrected history and her mom's path report, Lena meets four criteria: - §3.1: Aunt Gina, breast cancer diagnosed at 44 - §3.2: Mom, triple-negative breast cancer at 58 (pathology report shows ER 0%, PR 0%, HER2 1+) - §3.3: Grandma Rosa, ovarian cancer at 64 - §3.4: Grandpa Carlo, pancreatic adenocarcinoma Her new Bellwater Select PPO (BWH660311571) is active. The $45 copay means a $230.00 refund on the $275 deposit. As soon as you reply BOG-20 or BOP-28, I'll write the letter, submit the PA, send the refund, update the tracker and email Lena.
The user replies
BOP-28, the 28-gene Breast/Ovarian/Pancreatic panel through insurance. Lena called this morning to say she and Daniel settled on it as a compromise: it's covered, and the pancreatic genes matter to her because of her grandfather. I haven't charted the call yet, so the "prob BOG-20" in my notes is out of date. Go ahead and finish it up!
Turn 243 After the agent’s confirmation email, Lena replies in her corrections thread: she and Daniel are going with BOP‑28 through insurance. That matches Maren’s answer at turn 109 and the PA already submitted, so nothing needs to change.
Key moments of the trajectory
Initial desktop
The practice's 8-page PA & Billing Guide in Document Viewer, over Lena's patient folder in Files; Maren's Quillmail inbox, Bellwater Provider Connect and Northbridge Bank are open in Chrome behind them.
Turn 57 (zoomed view)
Zoomed view of the mother's pathology report, which Lena sent as a sideways photo. It shows invasive ductal carcinoma that is negative for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and HER2, i.e. triple-negative. The birth date and collection date put the diagnosis at age 58, not about 60 as the intake form said.
Turn 66
The current policy MP-GEN‑014 Revision 7 (effective July 27, 2026), opened from the Bellwater portal's Policy Library. The agent had noted that another saved policy file might be outdated, so it relied on the portal version.
Turn 84 (zoomed view)
The agent zoomed in on Maren's session notes in the terminal. They leave the panel undecided. Lena leaned toward the 84-gene panel, and her husband Daniel wanted the smallest covered panel (BOG‑20). The couple would decide together and Lena would email, and the notes say 'If not 84 -> prob BOG‑20'.
Turn 90 (zoomed view)
The agent zoomed in on the benefits table for member ID BWH660311571 to double-check the copay; the Eligibility & Benefits lookup had shown that member's Select PPO plan as active. Genetic counseling (procedure code CPT 96041) has a $45 in-network copay, and hereditary cancer testing needs prior authorization under MP-GEN‑014. This copay sets the refund at $230.
Turn 122
The end of the filled letter of medical necessity in LibreOffice Writer, reached as the agent scrolled through the letter to review it. It closes with Dr. Ferreira's typed '/s/ Paul Ferreira, MD' e-signature.
Turn 180 (zoomed view)
The portal's family history grid after the fifth row was entered. It lists the mother (triple-negative breast cancer at 58), maternal aunt (breast, 44), maternal grandmother (ovarian, 64), maternal grandfather (pancreatic, 71) and paternal grandfather (prostate, 74). Per the guide, three items were left out: the great-aunt Lucia (a third-degree relative), the paternal aunt's basal cell skin cancer and the father's benign polyps.
Turn 205
Bellwater portal confirmation after submission: reference BW-PA‑85062941, Standard review, determination due October 25, 2026.
Turn 215
Northbridge Bill Pay payee list. The only saved Marchetti payee is Luisa Marchetti (account ending 7790), a different patient, and Lena is not on the list. Before adding a payee, the agent opened this list to check whether Lena was already saved with the numbers from her deposit form.
Turn 225
Bill Pay confirmation BP49884576: the $230.00 refund to Lena M Marchetti (account ending 5208) was sent on October 11, with delivery expected by October 13.
Turn 241
After confirming the recipient was lena.marchetti@quillmail.com, the agent sent the email and opened Quillmail's Sent folder. At the top is the confirmation just sent to Lena, subject 'Prior authorization submitted - BOP‑28 - Ref BW-PA‑85062941'. Further down is an earlier confirmation to the other patient, Luisa Marchetti.
Result
- Model turns
- 245
- Tool calls
- 948
- Minutes taken
- 272
- Screenshots
- 207
- Zoomed views
- 37
- Checkpoints
- 31
Workflow phases (6)
- Read the practice guide, then reconcile the family history from the intake form, session notes, correction email and sideways pathology photo.
- Find the insurer’s current policy revision, work out which criteria and diagnosis codes apply, and confirm with Maren which panel Lena chose.
- Check eligibility in the portal to find the active plan, member ID and copay.
- Fill the letter of medical necessity from the template with the physician’s /s/ e-signature and export it as a PDF.
- Submit the prior authorization through the portal wizard with the family grid, criteria and both attachments.
- Refund the deposit minus the copay through bank Bill Pay, add the tracker row and email Lena the confirmation.
Scores of the reference and wrong solutions
| Solution | Score |
|---|---|
| Reference solution | 1.00 |
| Initial state | 0.00 |
| Wrong: Submits BOG‑20, then resubmits | 0.89 |
| Wrong: Guesses BOG‑20 from notes | 0.78 |
| Wrong: Stops after letter and PA | 0.70 |
| Wrong: Follows superseded Revision 6 | 0.66 |
| Wrong: Uses uncorrected intake history | 0.62 |
| Wrong: Refund sent to another patient | 0.20 |
| Wrong: Never submits or saves | 0.14 |
Checkpoints (31)
- Family-history grid: Mother / Breast, triple-negative / diagnosed at 58 / Living / age 66 (from the pathology report and the corrections).
- Family-history grid: Maternal aunt / Breast / diagnosed at 44 (corrected from 54) / Living / age 61.
- Family-history grid: Maternal grandmother / Ovarian (corrected from uterine) / diagnosed at 64 / Deceased at 66.
- Family-history grid: Maternal grandfather / Pancreatic (corrected from stomach) / diagnosed at 71 / Deceased at 72.
- The grid includes the paternal grandfather's prostate cancer and has exactly 5 rows (no great-aunt or 'Other' row, no basal cell skin cancer (BCC), no polyps, no duplicates).
- The PA requests the panel Lena actually chose (only Maren and Lena know it; the notes point to BOG‑20): Calloway's BOP‑28, test code CG‑2128, 28 genes; no other test code was ever submitted for her.
- The policy Revision 7 criteria ticked are exactly 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 (not 3.6 via the great-aunt or relatives on the other side of the family, and not 3.8 from the Tyrer-Cuzick risk score).
- ICD‑10 diagnosis codes are exactly Z80.3, Z80.41 and Z80.0 (family history of breast, ovarian and digestive-organ cancer; one Z80 code per cancer type behind a ticked criterion).
- CPT procedure codes are exactly 81432 and 81433, as listed for test code CG‑2128 in the Calloway test menu.
- Request type is Standard (no active cancer; guide section 3 and policy Revision 7 section 7.2).
- Exactly one submitted (non-withdrawn) PA for Lena, under the active member ID BWH660311571.
- An Eligibility & Benefits lookup in the portal returned the active Select PPO coverage (the source for the cost share).
- Ordering provider is Dr. Ferreira, with his NPI (National Provider Identifier), not the former director Whitcombe or a genetic counselor.
- Personal history: no cancer and no prior germline (inherited) genetic testing.
- The PA has a PDF tagged LMN (letter of medical necessity) that matches the saved letter (normalized text similarity of at least 0.95).
- The PA has the mother's pathology report attached and tagged 'Pathology report' (the same scan, at any rotation).
- The portal clinical summary names the relatives who support the criteria: the triple-negative mother, the aunt diagnosed at 50 or younger, the grandmother with ovarian cancer and the grandfather with pancreatic cancer.
- The letter of medical necessity (LMN) is saved as ~/Patients/Marchetti_Lena/LMN_Marchetti_Lena_<YYYYMMDD>.pdf (a text PDF created during the task).
- The letter identifies Lena (name, date of birth), the active Select PPO plan and member ID BWH660311571, and never uses the terminated ID.
- The letter cites the authoritative policy: MP-GEN‑014 Revision 7, criteria 3.1-3.4 and the 30-gene limit (section 4.2); no Revision 6 content is presented as current.
- The letter states the corrected history: aunt at 44, grandmother ovarian, grandfather pancreatic, mother triple-negative at 58.
- The letter names Calloway's BOP‑28 panel (test code CG‑2128, 28 genes), CPT procedure codes 81432/81433 and ICD‑10 diagnosis codes Z80.3/Z80.41/Z80.0.
- The letter explains why an affected relative is not tested first (the mother declines; the aunt is estranged or unavailable).
- The letter is signed '/s/ Paul Ferreira, MD' with his NPI; it contains no Whitcombe, no Hollis (from the old example letter), no CG‑2127 (a retired test code) and no leftover template placeholders.
- The letter explains how results would change care (Revision 7 section 5.1(f)), naming at least two of: breast MRI/screening, risk-reducing surgery, pancreatic surveillance, cascade testing of relatives.
- The letter presents no uncorrected fact as current (uterine, stomach, aunt at 54, mother at about 60) unless it is worded as a correction.
- Exactly one new Northbridge payment from Operating Checking: $230.00 ($275 minus the active plan's $45 copay) to Lena's routing number, account ending 5208, with the deposit receipt number LGC-DEP‑3381 in the memo; nothing sent to Luisa.
- PA_Tracker.xlsx has exactly one new row and the earlier rows are untouched; the row gives the date, patient, date of birth, payer, active member ID, lab, test code CG‑2128, and the CPT and ICD codes.
- The tracker row has the PA reference number and expected decision date from the portal, Status 'Submitted', and Deposit Refund '$230.00 sent <date>' matching the real refund.
- Confirmation emailed to Lena only (practice CCs are fine) after submission: the reference in the subject and body, BOP‑28, the decision date, and the $230.00 refund to the account ending 5208.
- The patient email explains next steps per guide section 11 (kit after approval, results about 2-3 weeks after the sample, a results visit) and contains no other patient's details.
Sample 7 of 7
Solar hub keyword map scored from CRM lost deals, then scheduled
Maya Okafor is an SEO strategist at Sunmesa Solar & Storage in Denver. Her files include two keyword exports (the newest and an older spring pass), the finished Financing hub keyword map (its hidden Scoring sheet holds the scoring method), a site page inventory, an empty Content Hub folder and, in Downloads, a stale Leadfold closed-lost export left from the Financing research. Her mailbox holds Graham Lindqvist’s kickoff for the new Solar Savings & Batteries hub, content lead Priya Raman’s scheduling notes, a later territory update from COO Teresa Vance carrying the Service Territory Register PDF, and the earlier Financing handoff. The Leadfold CRM lists 276 sales opportunities, 116 of them closed lost. On the Daywise calendars, Editorial pieces go out on Tuesdays and Thursdays, next week’s two slots are already booked, and the company calendar carries a website-migration publishing freeze.
Why it is hard
The request names the outcome but not the rules behind it: the scoring lives on a hidden sheet, the usual publishing slots have to be inferred from past publish dates, and the freeze dates appear only on the calendars. The active territory, competitors and page ownership must also be reconciled across mail, Leadfold and the page inventory, and mid-task three new HOA losses in Leadfold change the ranking, so an agent that already tallied the deals must notice and re-pull.
The user’s request, verbatim
Hi! Can you finish the keyword-to-page plan for the new Solar Savings & Batteries hub today? Background is in Graham's kickoff email. Use the newest keyword export in Documents/SEO/Exports and build SolarHub_KeywordMap.xlsx in Documents/SEO/Content Hub. Every keyword in that export needs a row with its intent, cluster, priority score and action: New page, Optimize (with the existing URL), or Exclude with the reason. Score it and lay it out exactly like our Financing hub map in Documents/SEO/Financing Hub. That includes the demand boost from our closed-lost deals in Leadfold, and a Clusters tab like that one with the Leadfold IDs of the deals you counted. Exclude anything for areas we don't actually serve right now, competitor brand terms, and junk that isn't about home solar or home batteries. Then put the six highest-scoring New page clusters on the Editorial calendar, in the next open slots of our normal publishing schedule. Highest score goes first, nothing before next week, and don't move anything that's already booked. Set them up like the existing Publish events, and add the dates to the Clusters tab too. Last, email Priya the workbook with a short list of the six pages and their dates, cc Graham. Please don't edit anything in Leadfold.
Apps and websites in the environment
What happens mid-task
Turn 48 After the homeowners’ associations deny the installations, sales manager Luis Ortega closes three deals in Leadfold as lost, all with Lost Reason ‘HOA approval’: Alvarez (Mesa, AZ), Whitaker (Phoenix, AZ) and Kowalski (Meridian, ID).
Turn 48 Luis emails Maya, copying Graham, to say he has just closed these three and to ask her to re-pull so they are counted.
Key moments of the trajectory
Initial desktop
Maya's Quillmail inbox in Chrome, with Leadfold and the Daywise calendar in the other tabs. The inbox already holds Teresa's territory update with the register PDF, Graham's kickoff thread, Serpstone's notice that the 146-keyword export is ready, the website-migration and publishing-freeze emails, and everyday mail unrelated to the task.
Turn 2
Graham's kickoff email expanded in Quillmail: build the Solar Savings & Batteries hub the same way as the Financing hub with six new pages, for markets listed as Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah plus Nevada. Below it, Priya's reply sets the scheduling rules: nothing in the hand-over week, the next open usual slots in score order, nothing in the freeze week, and the two Financing follow-ups already on the calendar stay where they are.
Turn 6 (zoomed view)
Zoom on the rev. 15 Service Territory Register attached to Teresa Vance's update. Idaho is Active from 28 Sep 2026 and Nevada is only Planned, which overrides the kickoff's market list.
Turn 26 (zoomed view)
Terminal dump of the Financing workbook's Scoring sheet. It holds the intent weights, the keyword-difficulty (KD) and demand-boost bands, and the rules for Priority Score, Leadfold evidence (Closed Lost, trailing 12 months, Active states) and actions.
Turn 61
Mid-task email from sales manager Luis Ortega: he has just closed out three more deals in Leadfold, all with Lost Reason 'HOA approval' (Alvarez in Mesa and Whitaker in Phoenix, both in the Phoenix metro, and Kowalski in Meridian), and asks for a re-pull.
Turn 68
The Daywise agenda shows the website-migration publishing freeze over Oct 26–30. The agent had already seen that next week's Tuesday and Thursday slots (Oct 13 and 15) hold Financing follow-ups.
Turn 88
After refreshing Leadfold, the All Closed Lost list has grown from 116 to 119 deals and now includes Kowalski, Whitaker and Alvarez. The agent re-exports from this view.
Turn 92
Leadfold accounts filtered to type Competitor: Bluebird Solar, Helios Home Energy, Peak Solar Co and SunCrest Energy. Helios brand terms are therefore excluded, even though the competitor list on the Financing map's Scoring sheet lacks Helios.
Turn 119
Headless LibreOffice recalculation of the new SolarHub_KeywordMap.xlsx: all 382 formula cells match the cached values (0 mismatches), and no lock file or process is left behind.
Turn 191 (zoomed view)
October month view after booking: new 9:00 Publish events on Tue Oct 20 and Thu Oct 22, the Oct 13/15 bookings untouched, and no Publish event in the Oct 26–30 freeze week, which holds only the freeze and on-call banners, standups and meetings. The other four land on Nov 3, 5, 10 and 12, after the freeze.
Turn 209
The sent email to Priya, scrolled to the bottom: the end of the list of pages to optimize, with their existing URLs; what was left out and why (the Nevada terms deferred in Teresa's territory update, California and Texas, the SunCrest, Helios and Peak brand terms, off-topic junk); a note that nothing lands in the Oct 26–30 freeze week and the two Financing follow-ups on Oct 13 and 15 stay where they are; and SolarHub_KeywordMap.xlsx attached.
Result
- Model turns
- 210
- Tool calls
- 920
- Minutes taken
- 279
- Screenshots
- 175
- Zoomed views
- 51
- Checkpoints
- 30
Workflow phases (6)
- Read the kickoff, territory and handoff emails and the Financing map’s hidden scoring rules.
- Pull qualifying closed-lost deals and competitors from Leadfold.
- Re-pull Leadfold when new HOA losses are reported.
- Score and classify all 146 keywords in the new workbook.
- Book six Publish events in the next open Tue/Thu slots and add the dates to the Clusters tab.
- Email Priya the workbook and the six dates, copying Graham.
Scores of the reference and wrong solutions
| Solution | Score |
|---|---|
| Reference solution | 1.00 |
| Initial state | 0.00 |
| Wrong: Misses the mid-task HOA losses | 0.88 |
| Wrong: Moves existing calendar bookings | 0.74 |
| Wrong: Stops after the workbook | 0.69 |
| Wrong: Uses the kickoff’s market list, keeps Helios | 0.56 |
| Wrong: Uses the spring keyword export and old Leadfold CSV | 0.38 |
| Wrong: Never saves or attaches the workbook | 0.24 |
Checkpoints (30)
- SolarHub_KeywordMap.xlsx exists in Documents/SEO/Content Hub with a keyword sheet and a Clusters sheet laid out like the Financing hub map.
- Every keyword of the newest export has a row (at least 144 of 146), and there are no rows for keywords that only the older export contains.
- Search volume and KD (keyword difficulty) come from the newest export on at least 98% of rows.
- Intent is the first intent the keyword tool lists (on at least 95% of rows and at least 18 of the 20 mixed-intent rows), and Cluster is the export's Parent Topic.
- All 8 Nevada rows are excluded as outside the service territory.
- All California and Texas rows are excluded as outside the service territory.
- The 4 Idaho rows stay in scope (3 as New page; 'idaho solar incentives' as Optimize with the existing /incentives/ page).
- All 9 competitor brand rows (including the 4 Helios Home Energy rows) are excluded as competitor brand terms.
- The 7 irrelevant rows (not about home solar or batteries) are excluded as irrelevant, and at most 2 in-scope rows are excluded.
- The Demand Boost (the uplift that lost-deal evidence gives a cluster) is right for at least 12 of the 13 clusters that Leadfold evidence decides.
- The evidence for 'solar battery backup power outage' lists exactly the qualifying opportunities (no Nevada pilot deal).
- The evidence for 'hoa solar rules' (homeowners' association rules) lists exactly the qualifying opportunities, including the HOA losses logged mid-task and not the one older than 12 months.
- The evidence for 'replace roof before solar' lists exactly the three qualifying opportunities (the Idaho loss counted).
- The evidence for 'time of use rates solar' and 'add battery to existing solar' is exact (no Nevada deals and none older than 12 months).
- The evidence is exact for at least 7 of: battery cost, net metering, battery sizing, warranty transfer, generator (none), lease vs loan, payback, financing.
- The evidence was pulled from Leadfold without creating, editing or deleting anything there (saved views, reports and exports are fine).
- Priority Score is within 2% of the reference answer on at least 90% of the 116 in-scope rows.
- The six rows with KD exactly 30, 50 or 70 (the edges of the difficulty bands) and the one navigational-intent row are scored exactly.
- The six clusters already owned by a live page are set to Optimize with that page's URL (on the Clusters tab and the keyword rows).
- 'solar panel maintenance' is a New page (the old cleaning post is retired).
- 'solar battery cost', 'how many solar batteries do i need' and 'net metering' are New pages (a page that merely ranks, a draft or a redirected page does not own them).
- Cluster Score is within 2% of the reference answer for the nine highest-scoring New page clusters.
- Exactly six new timed 'Publish:' events on the Editorial calendar, each at 09:00 Mountain Time on a free Tuesday or Thursday slot from next week on, outside the freeze, with existing bookings untouched.
- The six events are for the six highest-scoring New page clusters.
- Highest score first: each cluster sits on the free slot its rank calls for.
- Events follow the existing pattern: 'Publish: <headline>' with Hub | Cluster | Owner in the description.
- The Clusters tab carries a publish date for exactly the six scheduled clusters.
- A message to Priya, with Graham copied and SolarHub_KeywordMap.xlsx attached.
- The attached workbook is the finished one (all keywords, publish dates filled in).
- The email lists the six pages with their dates, highest score first.
Customization
Including, but not limited to, the following; anything else is open for discussion.
- Domains: occupations and industries, or your own workflow ideas.
- Challenges: which OSWorld 2.0 challenge types to stress, how many per task, how long the task is.
- Apps and websites: which ones each task must use; new portals can be built.
- Format: re-runnable task environments only, full trajectories only, or both; several runs per task, failed ones kept.
- Agent harness: your action space, screenshot size and context strategy.
- Volume and schedule: how many and by when.