Evaluate Working Protocol Renderer with Semantic Consolidator V0

- evaluate Working Protocol renderer using Semantic Consolidator V0 output - preserve benchmark artifacts for later comparison - confirm Semantic Consolidator V0 integrates successfully with renderer - establish baseline before renderer improvements
2026-07-31 11:52:29 +02:00
parent 90aa34d5d0
commit 40f390ebfe
2 changed files with 120 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
 # Working Protocol Synthesizer V1 Report
 - Input source: `samples/benchmarks/semantic_consolidator_v0/consolidated_extractions.json`
 - Model: `qwen3.5:9B`
 - Renderer prompt identity/path: `/private/tmp/meeting_lab_working_protocol_synthesis_prompt.txt`
 - Thinking setting: disabled (`think=false`)
 - Prompt characters: 108289
 - Prompt evaluation tokens: 25217
 - Output tokens: 1996
 - Runtime: 689.414 seconds
 - Output size: 10407 bytes
 - Input adapter required: yes
 - LLM call count: 1
@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
 # Working Protocol
 ## Overview
 This protocol documents the outcomes of a meeting regarding the optimization and standardization of the R&D (Research & Development) project intake process. The discussion focused on adapting existing processes for various project types (F&E, PM, Marketing, Business Development), defining mandatory versus optional criteria for new ideas, establishing filtering mechanisms to prevent overload, and clarifying organizational responsibilities. Key decisions include maintaining a flexible approach where specific documents are adapted per project type rather than creating complex additional workflows, while ensuring that pre-project criteria are handled by the commercial area before R&D engagement.
 ## Topics
 ### Project Intake Process Structure & Scope
 **Background:**
 The current process is historically an F&E (Research and Development) process but has been expanded to cover projects of physical or non-physical nature aligned with development ideas. The project leadership is not assigned to a specific department, ensuring cross-departmental oversight. A key distinction was made that the existing process flow remains largely unchanged for Business Development (BD) projects; however, specific documents and questions are adapted based on the project type. It was noted that criteria relevant to real products may differ from those used in early-stage ideation phases where different pre-project criteria must be handled first by the commercial area.
 **Decisions:**
 *   The existing process framework will be utilized for all project types (F&E, PM, Marketing, BD), with specific documents adapted per type rather than creating complex additional processes suitable only for larger enterprises.
 *   For Business Development projects specifically, a Project Cover Sheet and Requirements Specification (Lastenheft) are to be created.
 *   The process steps for different project types will remain open in the Swimlane diagram; they are not formally rigidly defined but adapted based on specific needs and views.
 **Action Items:**
 *   Define filter criteria specifically for different cases: new products/applications versus existing markets.
 *   Establish a list showing who is responsible for what to avoid duplicate handling of items from different sources (e.g., Papatikus Anker projects).
 **Open Questions:**
 *   For which specific types of projects should overarching project management be desired?
 *   At which stage does a department decide independently versus when it requires higher-level approval regarding entry into the funding pool ("Topf")?
 ### Criteria for New Project Ideas (Mandatory & Optional)
 **Background:**
 Before an idea enters the formal R&D process, specific pre-project criteria must be addressed. The commercial area is responsible for handling these tasks beforehand so that work does not commence until issues are clarified. A new idea submitted via email or similar channels must meet minimum requirements to be processed at all. These include a title, project concept (Idee), and project goal. Optional elements may include concrete lists of underlying assumptions, such as expected market volume.
 **Decisions:**
 *   Minimum mandatory content for any new idea: Title, Project Idea/Concept, and Project Goal.
 *   Optional content to be included if available: Concrete list of underlying assumptions (e.g., expected market potential).
 *   A check process is established to determine if an idea can be executed at the team or department level versus being cross-departmental, strategic, or requiring a budget.
 **Action Items:**
 *   Enrich ideas with minimum requirements before they are processed in the system.
 *   Define specific checks for BD projects: typically 3-4 typical BD items must be queried (e.g., digital affinity, cultural hurdles).
 ### Filtering Mechanisms and Pre-Sorting
 **Background:**
 To manage volume effectively without over-complicating the process, a two-stage filtering approach is adopted. The first stage involves "pre-filters" or pre-sorting to determine if an idea belongs in the pool at all (e.g., checking strategic fit). This initial filter serves as a decision draft rather than a final binding decision. Issues arise when individuals only submit keywords without context; therefore, gatekeepers are needed to formally process information and ensure completeness before it reaches the committee. Technical constraints exist regarding slow network connections at municipal locations and uncooperative secretariats who lack specific knowledge but claim high workload.
 **Decisions:**
 *   Two distinct filtering stages are defined: Pre-filtering (Vorfilter) prior to formal entry, followed by review in the Committee/Gremium.
 *   The first filter is explicitly defined as a decision draft (*Entscheidungsvorlage*) and not a final binding decision.
 *   Filters must be defined but should remain coarse-grained; they are not intended to go into minute detail immediately.
 **Action Items:**
 *   Giovanna will compile the criteria and create a first draft of the selection catalog integrating EDD, Marketing, and PM criteria.
 *   Björn is tasked with defining specific criteria for Business Development projects (e.g., digital affinity, cultural hurdles) and integrating them into the filter.
 *   Establish a process where filters are securely queried to prevent keyword-only submissions.
 ### Organizational Responsibilities & Roles
 **Background:**
 Responsibilities were clarified regarding who handles which stage of the project lifecycle. The Board/CEO (*Geschäftsführung*) retains overall oversight of projects within the company. Project processing must and can only occur within specialized departments (Fachabteilungen). There is a lack of competence in certain areas; for instance, one party explicitly stated they do not have the authority to decide on the success of marketing projects. The R&D funding pool (*F&E-Topf*) remains jointly managed rather than fragmented.
 **Decisions:**
 *   Project processing must and can only take place within specialized departments (Fachabteilungen).
 *   Business Development is agreed upon for involvement in pre-sorting and querying minimum data, though this role could be assumed by others if preferred.
 *   The Head of R&D leads the project list during the bi-weekly interface stand-up meeting (*Schnittstellen-Stand-Up*), where projects are categorized (F&E Research/Development vs. PM vs. BD).
 **Action Items:**
 *   Björn is to discuss specific projects with Project Management or Business Development and forward them to the specialized departments for handling.
 *   Malte will copy the Miro link into the chat and distribute it to all relevant persons (specifically Henning).
 *   Specialized departments are instructed to work out the catalog along these lines and bring it to a decision.
 ### Documentation Standards & Formats
 **Background:**
 Different project types require different documentation approaches. A presentation format using PowerPoint with questions at the front or bullet points, potentially including predefined slides, has proven very functional in daily practice over the last year. Gantt diagrams are not required for every single task; they should be used selectively when searching for status rather than being mandatory for all phases. The goal is to maintain a chronological record that can be referenced as needed without unnecessary complexity.
 **Decisions:**
 *   For various project types, different documents will be utilized (e.g., Requirements Specification/Lastenheft for market goals vs. Functional Specifications/Pflichtenheft with resource planning).
 *   The process should not be made overly complex; a feeling for necessary information is to be developed iteratively rather than through early comprehensive planning of everything upfront.
 **Action Items:**
 *   Define which specific documents (e.g., Project Cover Sheet, Requirements Specification) are required for BD projects versus F&E/PM projects.
 ### Technical & Operational Constraints
 **Background:**
 Several operational hurdles were identified that impact the process execution. Network connections at municipal locations (*Gemeinden*) are currently very slow. Secretariats have been observed to be uncooperative regarding these processes, often citing a lack of knowledge and high workload as reasons for refusal or delay. Additionally, hardware issues such as computer crashes affecting dual monitors were noted during the session but do not constitute process requirements.
 **Decisions:**
 *   No decision was made on technical infrastructure upgrades; however, it is acknowledged that current limitations (network speed) exist at specific locations and must be managed operationally.
 ## Cross-topic Action Items
 1.  **Giovanna**: Compile criteria and create a first draft of the selection catalog integrating EDD-, Marketing- and PM-criteria.
 2.  **Björn**: Define other criteria for Business Development projects (e.g., digital affinity, cultural hurdles) and integrate them into the filter; discuss specific project discussions with PM or BD to forward items to specialized departments.
 3.  **Malte**: Copy the Miro link into the chat and distribute it to all relevant persons (specifically Henning).
 ## Open Questions
 1.  How will specific selection criteria for digital products (e.g., Portal) versus real physical products be defined and integrated?
 2.  Exactly how should requirements for the Requirements Specification (*Lastenheft*) for non-F&E projects be defined, given that other departments may have different standards they deem appropriate?
 3.  Should pre-filtering be performed by a central entity or decentralized within the individual departments (specifically regarding whether it is correct to place this responsibility with David and James in R&D)?
 4.  Who assumes process responsibility for the initial screening of project ideas?
 5.  Are we convinced that we should proceed with launching the market study mentioned during the discussion?
 6.  Which specific projects require overarching project management, and which do not?
 7.  Exactly how are filter criteria to be defined (e.g., strategic conformity vs. utility)?
 8.  Who presents which project in which committee meeting?
 9.  What check points (*Prüfsteine*) are relevant specifically for the specialized departments independent of the main process flow?