Establish prompt engineering baseline with Gold Standard tests

- introduce Gold Standard evaluation corpus
- document decision taxonomy
- define prompt-engineering methodology
- add regression workflow
- establish Prompt Version 2 baseline
- validate decision_simple, decision_deferred and decision_none

.gitignore

@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ samples/whisper/
 **/chunk_*_extraction.json
 **/meeting_protocol.md
 **/*.raw.txt
+tests/gold/**/actual.json
 
 # Lokale Meetings (niemals versionieren)
 meeting_data/

prompts/common.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+Du extrahierst Informationen aus Meeting-Transkripten.
+
+Arbeite ausschließlich mit dem vorgelegten Transkript.
+Verwende kein eigenes Fachwissen, keine Vermutungen und keine üblichen
+Funktionsweisen technischer Systeme.
+
+Regeln:
+1. Erfinde nichts.
+2. Interpretiere technische Aussagen nicht über den Wortlaut hinaus.
+3. Korrigiere keine Aussagen anhand vermeintlichen Weltwissens.
+4. Wenn etwas widersprüchlich oder unklar ist, kennzeichne es als unklar.
+5. Übernimm wichtige technische Aussagen möglichst nah am Wortlaut.
+6. Nenne bei Fakten nach Möglichkeit den Sprecher.
+7. Ein Beschluss ist nur dann ein Beschluss, wenn im Text eine Einigung,
+   Freigabe oder verbindliche Festlegung erkennbar ist.
+8. Eine Aufgabe ist nur dann eine Aufgabe, wenn eine Handlung und möglichst
+   eine verantwortliche Person oder Organisation erkennbar sind.
+9. Gib ausschließlich gültiges JSON aus. Kein Markdown, keine Erläuterungen.
+
+Hinweise zur Ausgabe:
+- Alle obersten Schlüssel müssen vorhanden sein.
+- Verwende leere Listen, wenn keine Einträge vorhanden sind.
+- Verwende null, wenn Verantwortliche, Sprecher oder Termine nicht erkennbar sind.
+- "evidence" muss sich eng am Transkript orientieren.
+- Ersetze technische Aussagen niemals durch eine vermeintlich korrektere Erklärung.
+- Confidence-Werte sind ausdrücklich nicht erwünscht.

prompts/decisions.md

@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+You extract decisions from meeting transcript text.
+
+Return only valid JSON.
+
+Schema:
+
+{
+  "decisions": [
+    {
+      "decision": "Concise decision text",
+      "evidence": "Short quote from the transcript"
+    }
+  ]
+}
+
+Definition:
+
+A decision exists only when the participants explicitly agreed, approved,
+confirmed, adopted, assigned, or otherwise made something binding during the
+meeting.
+
+Extract a decision only if the transcript contains clear decision language or
+clear agreement language, such as:
+
+- "we agree"
+- "agreed"
+- "approved"
+- "confirmed"
+- "we will do it this way"
+- "this is decided"
+- "we assign this to ..."
+- "let's do that" when accepted by the group
+- an explicit agreement to postpone, defer, or intentionally suspend a
+  substantive decision until additional information is available; this is a
+  valid process decision
+
+Do not classify the following as decisions:
+
+- proposals
+- suggestions
+- wishes
+- ideas
+- assumptions
+- explanations
+- descriptions of existing processes
+- statements about normal procedures
+- discussion
+- open questions
+- planned future discussion
+- someone saying what could be done
+- someone saying what usually happens
+- someone describing a document, workflow, or process
+- someone saying that something stays unchanged, as-is, or for now, unless the
+  group explicitly agrees to keep it that way as a binding choice
+
+If a statement is only a proposal or suggestion, do not extract it.
+
+If participants discuss something but do not explicitly agree to it, do not
+extract it.
+
+If the transcript describes an existing process, rule, template, document, or
+workflow, do not extract it unless the participants explicitly adopt or change it
+in this meeting.
+
+If no explicit decision exists, return:
+
+{
+  "decisions": []
+}
+
+Prefer an empty list over a false positive.
+
+For each decision:
+
+- Write one concise decision text.
+- Extract each decision as one atomic commitment.
+- Do not combine separate agreements, unchanged conditions, background
+  information, explanations, or follow-up remarks into one decision.
+- If two distinct matters were agreed, return two separate decisions.
+- Include one short evidence quote from the transcript.
+- Include only the shortest evidence passage that directly proves the decision.
+- Do not invent responsible persons.
+- Do not invent deadlines.
+- Do not invent priorities.
+- Do not add confidence values.
+- Do not explain your reasoning.

scripts/run_gold_test.py

@@ -0,0 +1,223 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+"""Run one gold-corpus scenario through the existing extraction flow."""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import argparse
+import json
+import sys
+import time
+from pathlib import Path
+from typing import Any
+
+import requests
+
+REPO_ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1]
+if str(REPO_ROOT) not in sys.path:
+    sys.path.insert(0, str(REPO_ROOT))
+
+from src.meeting_lab.extraction.extract_chunks import (
+    DEFAULT_ENDPOINT,
+    EXTRACTION_CATEGORIES,
+    build_prompt,
+    call_ollama,
+    normalize_current_schema,
+    parse_json_response,
+)
+
+
+REQUIRED_KEYS = set(EXTRACTION_CATEGORIES)
+
+
+def parse_args() -> argparse.Namespace:
+    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(
+        description="Run one gold-standard transcript through extraction."
+    )
+    parser.add_argument("scenario", type=Path, help="Gold scenario directory")
+    parser.add_argument("--model", required=True, help="Ollama model name")
+    parser.add_argument(
+        "--endpoint",
+        default=DEFAULT_ENDPOINT,
+        help=f"Ollama generate endpoint (default: {DEFAULT_ENDPOINT})",
+    )
+    parser.add_argument(
+        "--timeout",
+        type=int,
+        default=1800,
+        help="HTTP timeout in seconds (default: 1800)",
+    )
+    parser.add_argument(
+        "--temperature",
+        type=float,
+        default=0.0,
+        help="Sampling temperature (default: 0.0)",
+    )
+    parser.add_argument(
+        "--num-predict",
+        type=int,
+        default=8192,
+        help="Maximum generated tokens (default: 8192)",
+    )
+    parser.add_argument(
+        "--num-ctx",
+        type=int,
+        default=32768,
+        help="Context window tokens (default: 32768)",
+    )
+    return parser.parse_args()
+
+
+def scenario_paths(scenario_dir: Path) -> tuple[Path, Path, Path]:
+    if not scenario_dir.is_dir():
+        raise FileNotFoundError(f"Scenario directory not found: {scenario_dir}")
+
+    transcript_path = scenario_dir / "transcript.txt"
+    expected_path = scenario_dir / "expected.json"
+    actual_path = scenario_dir / "actual.json"
+
+    if not transcript_path.is_file():
+        raise FileNotFoundError(f"Missing transcript.txt: {transcript_path}")
+    if not expected_path.is_file():
+        raise FileNotFoundError(f"Missing expected.json: {expected_path}")
+
+    return transcript_path, expected_path, actual_path
+
+
+def read_json_object(path: Path) -> dict[str, Any]:
+    try:
+        data = json.loads(path.read_text(encoding="utf-8"))
+    except json.JSONDecodeError as exc:
+        raise ValueError(f"Invalid JSON in {path}: {exc}") from exc
+
+    if not isinstance(data, dict):
+        raise ValueError(f"JSON file must contain an object: {path}")
+
+    return data
+
+
+def validate_required_keys(data: dict[str, Any], path: Path) -> None:
+    missing = sorted(REQUIRED_KEYS - set(data))
+    if missing:
+        raise ValueError(f"Missing required keys in {path}: {', '.join(missing)}")
+
+
+def format_items(items: Any) -> list[str]:
+    if not isinstance(items, list):
+        return [f"<invalid non-list value: {items!r}>"]
+    if not items:
+        return ["<none>"]
+    return [str(item) for item in items]
+
+
+def print_decision_comparison(
+    scenario_dir: Path,
+    model: str,
+    expected: dict[str, Any],
+    actual: dict[str, Any],
+    runtime: float,
+) -> None:
+    expected_decisions = expected.get("decisions", [])
+    actual_decisions = actual.get("decisions", [])
+
+    print(f"Scenario: {scenario_dir}")
+    print(f"Model: {model}")
+    print(f"Expected decision count: {len(expected_decisions)}")
+    print(f"Actual decision count: {len(actual_decisions)}")
+    print("Expected decisions:")
+    for item in format_items(expected_decisions):
+        print(f"- {item}")
+    print("Actual decisions:")
+    for item in format_items(actual_decisions):
+        print(f"- {item}")
+    print(f"Runtime: {runtime:.2f}s")
+
+
+def run_gold_test(
+    scenario_dir: Path,
+    model: str,
+    endpoint: str,
+    timeout: int,
+    temperature: float,
+    num_predict: int | None,
+    num_ctx: int | None,
+) -> Path:
+    transcript_path, expected_path, actual_path = scenario_paths(scenario_dir)
+    expected = read_json_object(expected_path)
+    validate_required_keys(expected, expected_path)
+
+    transcript = transcript_path.read_text(encoding="utf-8-sig").strip()
+    if not transcript:
+        raise ValueError(f"The transcript is empty: {transcript_path}")
+
+    prompt = build_prompt(transcript_path.name, transcript)
+    started = time.perf_counter()
+    raw_text, _metadata = call_ollama(
+        endpoint=endpoint,
+        model=model,
+        prompt=prompt,
+        timeout=timeout,
+        temperature=temperature,
+        num_predict=num_predict,
+        num_ctx=num_ctx,
+    )
+
+    try:
+        parsed = parse_json_response(raw_text)
+    except (json.JSONDecodeError, ValueError) as exc:
+        raw_path = actual_path.with_suffix(".raw.txt")
+        raw_path.write_text(raw_text + "\n", encoding="utf-8")
+        raise ValueError(f"Model output was not valid JSON. Raw output: {raw_path}") from exc
+
+    actual = normalize_current_schema(parsed)
+    actual_path.write_text(
+        json.dumps(actual, ensure_ascii=False, indent=2) + "\n",
+        encoding="utf-8",
+    )
+
+    actual_from_disk = read_json_object(actual_path)
+    validate_required_keys(actual_from_disk, actual_path)
+    runtime = time.perf_counter() - started
+    print_decision_comparison(
+        scenario_dir=scenario_dir,
+        model=model,
+        expected=expected,
+        actual=actual_from_disk,
+        runtime=runtime,
+    )
+    return actual_path
+
+
+def main() -> int:
+    args = parse_args()
+    try:
+        actual_path = run_gold_test(
+            scenario_dir=args.scenario,
+            model=args.model,
+            endpoint=args.endpoint,
+            timeout=args.timeout,
+            temperature=args.temperature,
+            num_predict=args.num_predict,
+            num_ctx=args.num_ctx,
+        )
+    except requests.ConnectionError:
+        print(
+            "Error: Ollama is not reachable. Is `ollama serve` running?",
+            file=sys.stderr,
+        )
+        return 1
+    except requests.Timeout:
+        print("Error: The Ollama request timed out.", file=sys.stderr)
+        return 1
+    except requests.HTTPError as exc:
+        print(f"Error: Ollama returned an HTTP error: {exc}", file=sys.stderr)
+        return 1
+    except (OSError, UnicodeError, ValueError) as exc:
+        print(f"Error: {exc}", file=sys.stderr)
+        return 1
+
+    print(f"Actual JSON: {actual_path}")
+    return 0
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    raise SystemExit(main())

src/meeting_lab/extraction/extract_chunks.py

@@ -19,6 +19,8 @@ from typing import Any
 
 import requests
 
+from src.meeting_lab.llm.prompts import build_extraction_prompt
+
 
 DEFAULT_MODEL = "qwen3:8b"
 DEFAULT_ENDPOINT = "http://localhost:11434/api/generate"
@@ -35,28 +37,6 @@ EXTRACTION_CATEGORIES = (
 NORMALIZED_CHUNK_RE = re.compile(r"^(chunk_\d+)_normalized\.txt$")
 
 
-SYSTEM_INSTRUCTION = """
-Du extrahierst Informationen aus Meeting-Transkripten.
-
-Arbeite ausschließlich mit dem vorgelegten Transkript.
-Verwende kein eigenes Fachwissen, keine Vermutungen und keine üblichen
-Funktionsweisen technischer Systeme.
-
-Regeln:
-1. Erfinde nichts.
-2. Interpretiere technische Aussagen nicht über den Wortlaut hinaus.
-3. Korrigiere keine Aussagen anhand vermeintlichen Weltwissens.
-4. Wenn etwas widersprüchlich oder unklar ist, kennzeichne es als unklar.
-5. Übernimm wichtige technische Aussagen möglichst nah am Wortlaut.
-6. Nenne bei Fakten nach Möglichkeit den Sprecher.
-7. Ein Beschluss ist nur dann ein Beschluss, wenn im Text eine Einigung,
-   Freigabe oder verbindliche Festlegung erkennbar ist.
-8. Eine Aufgabe ist nur dann eine Aufgabe, wenn eine Handlung und möglichst
-   eine verantwortliche Person oder Organisation erkennbar sind.
-9. Gib ausschließlich gültiges JSON aus. Kein Markdown, keine Erläuterungen.
-""".strip()
-
-
 OUTPUT_SCHEMA = {
     "chunk": {
         "source_file": "string",
@@ -162,29 +142,7 @@ def parse_args() -> argparse.Namespace:
 
 
 def build_prompt(source_name: str, transcript: str) -> str:
-    schema_text = json.dumps(OUTPUT_SCHEMA, ensure_ascii=False, indent=2)
+    return build_extraction_prompt(source_name, transcript, OUTPUT_SCHEMA)
-
-    return f"""{SYSTEM_INSTRUCTION}
-
-Quelldatei:
-{source_name}
-
-Erwartete JSON-Struktur:
-{schema_text}
-
-Hinweise zur Ausgabe:
-- Alle obersten Schlüssel müssen vorhanden sein.
-- Verwende leere Listen, wenn keine Einträge vorhanden sind.
-- Verwende null, wenn Verantwortliche, Sprecher oder Termine nicht erkennbar sind.
-- "evidence" muss sich eng am Transkript orientieren.
-- Ersetze technische Aussagen niemals durch eine vermeintlich korrektere Erklärung.
-- Confidence-Werte sind ausdrücklich nicht erwünscht.
-
-TRANSKRIPT:
---- BEGINN TRANSKRIPT ---
-{transcript}
---- ENDE TRANSKRIPT ---
-"""
 
 
 def call_ollama(

src/meeting_lab/llm/prompts.py

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import json
+from pathlib import Path
+from typing import Any, Iterable
+
+
+PROJECT_ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[3]
+PROMPTS_DIR = PROJECT_ROOT / "prompts"
+
+
+def load_prompt(name: str, prompts_dir: Path = PROMPTS_DIR) -> str:
+    path = prompts_dir / name
+    return path.read_text(encoding="utf-8").strip()
+
+
+def load_existing_prompts(
+    names: Iterable[str],
+    prompts_dir: Path = PROMPTS_DIR,
+) -> list[str]:
+    prompts: list[str] = []
+    for name in names:
+        text = load_prompt(name, prompts_dir)
+        if text:
+            prompts.append(text)
+    return prompts
+
+
+def build_extraction_prompt(
+    source_name: str,
+    transcript: str,
+    output_schema: dict[str, Any],
+    task_prompt_names: Iterable[str] = ("decisions.md",),
+    prompts_dir: Path = PROMPTS_DIR,
+) -> str:
+    schema_text = json.dumps(output_schema, ensure_ascii=False, indent=2)
+    prompt_parts = [
+        load_prompt("common.md", prompts_dir),
+        *load_existing_prompts(task_prompt_names, prompts_dir),
+        f"""Quelldatei:
+{source_name}
+
+Erwartete JSON-Struktur:
+{schema_text}
+
+TRANSKRIPT:
+--- BEGINN TRANSKRIPT ---
+{transcript}
+--- ENDE TRANSKRIPT ---""",
+    ]
+    return "\n\n".join(part for part in prompt_parts if part).strip() + "\n"

tests/gold/DECISION_DEFINITION.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+# Decision Definition
+
+A decision is any explicit agreement that creates a binding change in action,
+process, responsibility, approval status, timing, or next step.
+
+Included:
+
+- substantive decisions
+- organizational decisions
+- process decisions
+- approvals
+- rejections
+- deferrals
+- explicit agreement not to decide yet
+- explicit agreement to gather more information before deciding
+
+Excluded:
+
+- opinions
+- preferences
+- proposals without agreement
+- open questions
+- descriptions of the current state
+- explanations without commitment
+
+Important distinction:
+
+- "No decision was reached" means the meeting ended without an agreed outcome.
+- "The group decided to defer the decision" means the group explicitly agreed
+  on a process outcome: the substantive decision is postponed.
+
+These are not equivalent.

tests/gold/PROMPT_ENGINEERING_METHODOLOGY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+# Prompt Engineering Methodology
+
+Prompt engineering uses the Gold Standard corpus as the reference. The corpus is
+not adjusted to make a prompt pass.
+
+Rules:
+
+1. Only one prompt change is allowed per iteration.
+2. Only one gold test case may be optimized at a time.
+3. Every prompt modification must be validated immediately.
+4. A prompt modification is acceptable only if it improves the current target
+   and does not degrade any previously passing gold test.
+5. Never modify `expected.json` to make a prompt pass.
+6. Prompt engineering edits prompt files only. Python code changes require a
+   separate explicit task.
+7. Maintain a prompt evolution log for every iteration.
+8. If a prompt cannot improve a test after several small iterations, stop and
+   analyze the root cause.
+9. Prompt changes must be generally applicable and must not special-case one
+   transcript.
+10. If two consecutive prompt iterations fail to improve the current target,
+    stop further prompt modifications and classify the root cause.
+11. If a prompt produces unexpected behavior, first verify whether the targeted
+    gold test has an objectively unique ground truth.
+
+Prompt Version 2 baseline:
+
+- `decision_simple`: passing
+- `decision_deferred`: passing
+- `decision_none`: passing
+
+Prompt Version 2 adds explicit support for process decisions where the group
+agrees to defer a substantive decision until additional information is
+available.

tests/gold/decision_deferred/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+# decision_deferred
+
+Tests that a process decision to defer a substantive decision is still extracted
+as a decision.
+
+The transcript contains several candidate options for the weekly dashboard, but
+the group does not choose any of them. Instead, Mira explicitly says not to
+decide today and Jonas agrees that more input is needed.
+
+Ground truth:
+
+- No substantive dashboard schedule decision is reached.
+- One process decision is reached: the substantive decision is deferred until
+  more information is available.
+
+Typical LLM mistakes:
+
+- Extracting Monday, Tuesday, or Friday as the chosen dashboard day.
+- Treating "I like shorter" as an approval.
+- Missing the deferral because the substantive decision is unresolved.
+- Treating "no decision today" as equivalent to no decision at all.

tests/gold/decision_deferred/expected.json

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+{
+  "facts": [],
+  "decisions": [
+    {
+      "decision": "The substantive decision is deferred until more information is available.",
+      "evidence": "Mira: Okay, let's not decide this today. Jonas: Agreed, we need more input."
+    }
+  ],
+  "todos": [
+    {
+      "task": "Lea will bring Dana's feedback about the weekly dashboard next time.",
+      "responsible": "Lea",
+      "deadline": "next time",
+      "evidence": "Lea: I will bring Dana's feedback next time."
+    }
+  ],
+  "questions": [],
+  "positions": [
+    {
+      "speaker": "Jonas",
+      "position": "Jonas prefers moving the weekly dashboard to Monday morning.",
+      "evidence": "Jonas: I would prefer moving it to Monday morning."
+    },
+    {
+      "speaker": "Lea",
+      "position": "Lea thinks Monday is difficult for support.",
+      "evidence": "Lea: Monday is rough for support."
+    }
+  ],
+  "technical": []
+}

tests/gold/decision_deferred/transcript.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+Mira: We need to talk about the weekly dashboard.
+
+Jonas: I would prefer moving it to Monday morning.
+
+Lea: Monday is rough for support. We usually have backlog cleanup then.
+
+Mira: Tuesday might work, but I am not sure.
+
+Jonas: Or we keep it on Friday and just make it shorter.
+
+Lea: I like shorter, but I need to check with Dana first.
+
+Mira: Okay, let's not decide this today.
+
+Jonas: Agreed, we need more input.
+
+Lea: I will bring Dana's feedback next time.
+
+Mira: Thanks, that will help.

tests/gold/decision_none/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+# decision_none
+
+Tests a true decision-negative meeting segment.
+
+The transcript contains discussion, competing preferences, and possible options
+for the weekly dashboard. No participant approves an option, rejects an option
+on behalf of the group, assigns a follow-up, agrees to gather more information,
+or explicitly decides to defer the decision.
+
+Ground truth:
+
+- No decision was reached.
+- No process decision was reached.
+- No agreed next step was created.
+
+Typical LLM mistakes:
+
+- Treating a preference as a decision.
+- Treating a proposed option as the selected option.
+- Treating the topic change as an implicit deferral decision.
+- Creating an action item for Dana even though she is only mentioned as absent.

tests/gold/decision_none/expected.json

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+{
+  "facts": [],
+  "decisions": [],
+  "todos": [],
+  "questions": [],
+  "positions": [
+    {
+      "speaker": "Jonas",
+      "position": "Jonas prefers moving the weekly dashboard to Monday morning.",
+      "evidence": "Jonas: I would prefer moving it to Monday morning."
+    },
+    {
+      "speaker": "Mira",
+      "position": "Mira thinks Tuesday might work better for support.",
+      "evidence": "Mira: Tuesday might work better for support."
+    },
+    {
+      "speaker": "Lea",
+      "position": "Lea suggests keeping Friday and making the dashboard shorter.",
+      "evidence": "Lea: Or we keep Friday and make the dashboard shorter."
+    }
+  ],
+  "technical": []
+}

tests/gold/decision_none/transcript.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+Mira: We need to talk about the weekly dashboard.
+
+Jonas: I would prefer moving it to Monday morning.
+
+Lea: Monday is rough for support because backlog cleanup starts then.
+
+Mira: Tuesday might work better for support.
+
+Jonas: Tuesday is hard for sales, at least this month.
+
+Lea: Or we keep Friday and make the dashboard shorter.
+
+Mira: I am not convinced shorter solves the timing issue.
+
+Jonas: I am not convinced Monday is actually a problem for everyone.
+
+Lea: Dana might have a view, but she is not here.
+
+Mira: We are circling now.
+
+Jonas: Yes, I do not have anything else to add.
+
+Lea: Same here.
+
+Mira: Okay, let's move to the budget topic.

tests/gold/decision_simple/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+# decision_simple
+
+Tests one explicit decision with clear agreement language.
+
+The difficult part is separating the decision from nearby rationale about user confusion and from the non-decision statement that the copy can stay unchanged for now.
+
+Typical LLM mistakes:
+
+- Extracting the rationale as a separate decision.
+- Treating "copy can stay as it is" as a formal decision.
+- Losing the evidence that shows explicit agreement.

tests/gold/decision_simple/expected.json

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+{
+  "facts": [],
+  "decisions": [
+    {
+      "decision": "The welcome email will be sent after account activation.",
+      "evidence": "So are we agreed that the welcome email moves to after activation? Ben: Agreed. Cara: Yes, let's do that."
+    }
+  ],
+  "todos": [],
+  "questions": [],
+  "positions": [],
+  "technical": []
+}

tests/gold/decision_simple/transcript.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+Anna: Before we leave the onboarding flow, can we settle the email step?
+
+Ben: I still think the welcome email should go out after account activation, not before.
+
+Cara: Yes, before activation it keeps confusing people.
+
+Anna: So are we agreed that the welcome email moves to after activation?
+
+Ben: Agreed.
+
+Cara: Yes, let's do that.
+
+Anna: Good. Then that is the decision for this release.
+
+Ben: Separate note on the copy: I am not proposing any wording decision today.
+
+Cara: Same here, no wording proposal from me.
+
+Anna: Okay, then the only decision is the timing after activation.

tests/gold/evil_meeting/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+# evil_meeting
+
+Tests a deliberately difficult meeting with interruptions, corrections, topic switches, changed positions, absent referenced people, and near-decisions.
+
+Every utterance is designed to trigger a common extraction failure. The meeting mentions Omar and Platform, but neither is a participant. It includes an explicit non-decision on migration and a real decision only on excluding FR-7 from Friday's batch.
+
+Typical LLM mistakes:
+
+- Extracting a migration decision even though the group says no migration decision today.
+- Assigning Dana a todo even though she retracts it.
+- Treating Omar as a participant or technical owner.
+- Claiming Platform approved something despite being absent.
+- Losing the correction from "old export" to "nightly CSV job" and from API export to CSV export.
+- Treating Dana's opinion about rollout appearance as a fact or decision.

tests/gold/evil_meeting/expected.json

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+{
+  "facts": [
+    {
+      "fact": "Tenant FR-7 still used the nightly CSV job yesterday.",
+      "evidence": "Alex: Fine. So fact: tenant FR-7 still used the nightly CSV job yesterday."
+    },
+    {
+      "fact": "Omar is the customer contact, not the technical owner.",
+      "evidence": "Bea: Omar is the customer contact, not a participant here and not the technical owner."
+    },
+    {
+      "fact": "Platform is the technical owner, but nobody from Platform is in the meeting.",
+      "evidence": "Chen: The technical owner is still Platform, but nobody from Platform is in this call."
+    },
+    {
+      "fact": "Friday's rollout batch still includes DE-2 and NL-4.",
+      "evidence": "Alex: Good. Back to the portal rollout. Friday's batch still includes DE-2 and NL-4."
+    }
+  ],
+  "decisions": [
+    {
+      "decision": "FR-7 is excluded from Friday's portal rollout batch.",
+      "evidence": "the portal rollout note will say FR-7 is excluded from Friday's batch. Bea: Agreed. Excluded from Friday's batch. Chen: Yes, put that in."
+    }
+  ],
+  "todos": [
+    {
+      "task": "Check the FR-7 mapping table.",
+      "responsible": "Bea",
+      "deadline": "Thursday morning",
+      "evidence": "Bea: Yes, I will check it by Thursday morning."
+    }
+  ],
+  "questions": [
+    {
+      "question": "Can FR-7 use the v2 mapping without a customer-side field rename?",
+      "evidence": "Alex: Open question: can FR-7 use the v2 mapping without a customer-side field rename?"
+    },
+    {
+      "question": "Can Omar confirm FR-7's preferred launch window?",
+      "evidence": "Dana: Also, can Omar confirm their preferred launch window?"
+    }
+  ],
+  "positions": [
+    {
+      "speaker": "Dana",
+      "position": "Dana wants to migrate FR-7 but recognizes the mapping table may not be clean.",
+      "evidence": "Dana: I want to, but we do not know if the mapping table is clean."
+    },
+    {
+      "speaker": "Bea",
+      "position": "Bea changed her earlier position and now says not to migrate FR-7 until the mapping table is checked.",
+      "evidence": "I said last week we should migrate it. I am changing that. Do not migrate until the mapping table is checked."
+    },
+    {
+      "speaker": "Dana",
+      "position": "Dana thinks excluding FR-7 makes the rollout look messy.",
+      "evidence": "Dana: I personally think excluding FR-7 makes the rollout look messy."
+    }
+  ],
+  "technical": [
+    {
+      "subject": "French export failure",
+      "statement": "The old nightly CSV job failed; the new exporter was not running on tenant FR-7.",
+      "evidence": "The old export failed. The new exporter was not running on that tenant."
+    },
+    {
+      "subject": "Export mapping tables",
+      "statement": "The API export uses the v2 mapping table, while the nightly CSV job uses the legacy table.",
+      "evidence": "the API export uses the v2 mapping table, the nightly CSV job uses the legacy table."
+    }
+  ]
+}

tests/gold/evil_meeting/transcript.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+Alex: Okay, quick pass on the portal rollout. Wait, before that, the French CSV export broke again.
+
+Bea: It did not break again. The old export failed. The new exporter was not running on that tenant.
+
+Chen: Sorry, when you say old export, do you mean the nightly job?
+
+Bea: Yes, the nightly CSV job. Not the API export.
+
+Alex: Fine. So fact: tenant FR-7 still used the nightly CSV job yesterday.
+
+Dana: I thought Omar owned that tenant.
+
+Bea: Omar is the customer contact, not a participant here and not the technical owner.
+
+Chen: The technical owner is still Platform, but nobody from Platform is in this call.
+
+Alex: Should we decide to migrate FR-7 today?
+
+Dana: I want to, but we do not know if the mapping table is clean.
+
+Bea: Also, I said last week we should migrate it. I am changing that. Do not migrate until the mapping table is checked.
+
+Chen: So no migration decision today?
+
+Alex: Correct, no migration decision today.
+
+Dana: But we can decide one thing: the portal rollout note will say FR-7 is excluded from Friday's batch.
+
+Bea: Agreed. Excluded from Friday's batch.
+
+Chen: Yes, put that in.
+
+Alex: Action item: Bea checks the FR-7 mapping table by Thursday morning.
+
+Bea: Yes, I will check it by Thursday morning.
+
+Dana: And I will message Omar after Bea is done.
+
+Alex: Hold on, after Bea is done is not a date.
+
+Dana: Fair. Then no task for me yet. I need Bea's result first.
+
+Chen: Technical note: the API export uses the v2 mapping table, the nightly CSV job uses the legacy table.
+
+Bea: Correct.
+
+Alex: Open question: can FR-7 use the v2 mapping without a customer-side field rename?
+
+Dana: Also, can Omar confirm their preferred launch window?
+
+Chen: Omar can answer that, but again he is not in this meeting.
+
+Alex: Good. Back to the portal rollout. Friday's batch still includes DE-2 and NL-4.
+
+Bea: Yes, those two are unchanged.
+
+Dana: I personally think excluding FR-7 makes the rollout look messy.
+
+Alex: Noted as Dana's view, not a decision.
+
+Chen: And please don't write that Platform approved anything. They are absent.

tests/gold/facts_simple/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+# facts_simple
+
+Tests extraction of objective facts from a short status update.
+
+The transcript includes a question and a technical statement, but no decision or todo.
+
+Typical LLM mistakes:
+
+- Treating "Good" as approval of a decision.
+- Turning "No decision needed today" into a decision.
+- Missing that the scanner gateway details are technical as well as factual.

tests/gold/facts_simple/expected.json

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+{
+  "facts": [
+    {
+      "fact": "The old scanner gateway is still running in aisle three.",
+      "evidence": "Tom: The old scanner gateway is still running in aisle three."
+    },
+    {
+      "fact": "Aisles one and two moved to the new gateway last week.",
+      "evidence": "Tom: Yes. Aisles one and two moved to the new gateway last week."
+    },
+    {
+      "fact": "The new gateway is handling live scans for receiving.",
+      "evidence": "Iris: The new gateway is already handling live scans for receiving."
+    }
+  ],
+  "decisions": [],
+  "todos": [],
+  "questions": [
+    {
+      "question": "Is aisle three the only scanner gateway still left on the old gateway?",
+      "evidence": "Elena: Is that the only one left?"
+    }
+  ],
+  "positions": [],
+  "technical": [
+    {
+      "subject": "Scanner gateway rollout",
+      "statement": "Aisle three remains on the old scanner gateway while aisles one and two use the new gateway.",
+      "evidence": "The old scanner gateway is still running in aisle three. Aisles one and two moved to the new gateway last week."
+    }
+  ]
+}

tests/gold/facts_simple/transcript.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+Elena: Quick status on the warehouse migration.
+
+Tom: The old scanner gateway is still running in aisle three.
+
+Elena: Is that the only one left?
+
+Tom: Yes. Aisles one and two moved to the new gateway last week.
+
+Iris: The new gateway is already handling live scans for receiving.
+
+Elena: Good. Let's keep the rollout note factual.
+
+Tom: No decision needed today.
+
+Iris: Fine.
+
+Elena: Anything else on warehouse?
+
+Tom: No, that is all.

tests/gold/facts_vs_positions/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+# facts_vs_positions
+
+Tests separation of objective facts from personal opinions.
+
+The transcript deliberately mixes numeric facts, named non-respondents, and subjective positions about rollout health.
+
+Typical LLM mistakes:
+
+- Treating Marta's opinion as an objective fact.
+- Treating Leo's optimism as a fact.
+- Extracting a rollout decision even though the group explicitly does not decide.

tests/gold/facts_vs_positions/expected.json

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+{
+  "facts": [
+    {
+      "fact": "The pilot survey closed yesterday with 42 responses.",
+      "evidence": "Hannah: The pilot survey closed yesterday with 42 responses."
+    },
+    {
+      "fact": "The average pilot survey rating was 3.8 out of 5.",
+      "evidence": "Leo: The average rating was 3.8 out of 5."
+    },
+    {
+      "fact": "Northwind, Verdan, and Eastport did not respond to the survey.",
+      "evidence": "Hannah: That part is true. Northwind, Verdan, and Eastport did not respond."
+    }
+  ],
+  "decisions": [],
+  "todos": [],
+  "questions": [
+    {
+      "question": "Why does Marta think the survey result is weaker than it looks?",
+      "evidence": "Leo: Why?"
+    }
+  ],
+  "positions": [
+    {
+      "speaker": "Marta",
+      "position": "Marta thinks the pilot survey result is weaker than it looks.",
+      "evidence": "Marta: I think that is weaker than it looks."
+    },
+    {
+      "speaker": "Leo",
+      "position": "Leo feels the pilot is healthy.",
+      "evidence": "Leo: I still feel the pilot is healthy."
+    },
+    {
+      "speaker": "Marta",
+      "position": "Marta thinks the rollout should slow down.",
+      "evidence": "Marta: I disagree. My view is that we should slow down the rollout."
+    }
+  ],
+  "technical": []
+}

tests/gold/facts_vs_positions/transcript.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+Hannah: The pilot survey closed yesterday with 42 responses.
+
+Leo: The average rating was 3.8 out of 5.
+
+Marta: I think that is weaker than it looks.
+
+Leo: Why?
+
+Marta: Because three enterprise customers skipped the survey entirely.
+
+Hannah: That part is true. Northwind, Verdan, and Eastport did not respond.
+
+Leo: I still feel the pilot is healthy.
+
+Marta: I disagree. My view is that we should slow down the rollout.
+
+Hannah: Let's capture both views and not decide rollout speed today.
+
+Leo: Okay, that matches my notes.

tests/gold/mixed_small/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+# mixed_small
+
+Tests a compact realistic meeting containing all major extraction categories.
+
+The transcript includes facts, one explicit decision, one action item, one open question, one opinion, and a technical constraint.
+
+Typical LLM mistakes:
+
+- Applying the demo-only decision to production.
+- Treating Mateo's diagnosis as a fact instead of a position.
+- Creating a long-term normalizer decision even though it is explicitly open.

tests/gold/mixed_small/expected.json

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+{
+  "facts": [
+    {
+      "fact": "The staging import handled 12,000 rows last night.",
+      "evidence": "Priya: The staging import handled 12,000 rows last night."
+    },
+    {
+      "fact": "The staging import took 48 minutes.",
+      "evidence": "Mateo: It finished, but it took 48 minutes."
+    },
+    {
+      "fact": "The partner demo target is 30 minutes.",
+      "evidence": "Lena: Yes, that is still the demo target."
+    }
+  ],
+  "decisions": [
+    {
+      "decision": "Address normalization will be disabled for the demo import only.",
+      "evidence": "Can we agree to disable address normalization for the demo import only? Lena: Yes, for the demo import only. Mateo: Agreed."
+    }
+  ],
+  "todos": [
+    {
+      "task": "Update the demo import configuration.",
+      "responsible": "Mateo",
+      "deadline": "Friday noon",
+      "evidence": "Mateo: I will do that before Friday noon."
+    }
+  ],
+  "questions": [
+    {
+      "question": "Whether a faster normalizer is needed after the demo.",
+      "evidence": "Lena: And the open question is whether we need a faster normalizer after the demo."
+    }
+  ],
+  "positions": [
+    {
+      "speaker": "Mateo",
+      "position": "Mateo thinks address normalization is the slow part.",
+      "evidence": "Mateo: I think the slow part is address normalization."
+    }
+  ],
+  "technical": [
+    {
+      "subject": "Demo import configuration",
+      "statement": "Address normalization is disabled only for the demo import; production imports keep full normalization.",
+      "evidence": "for the demo import only. Production imports keep the full normalization."
+    }
+  ]
+}

tests/gold/mixed_small/transcript.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+Priya: The staging import handled 12,000 rows last night.
+
+Mateo: It finished, but it took 48 minutes.
+
+Priya: The limit for the partner demo is 30 minutes, right?
+
+Lena: Yes, that is still the demo target.
+
+Mateo: I think the slow part is address normalization.
+
+Priya: Can we agree to disable address normalization for the demo import only?
+
+Lena: Yes, for the demo import only.
+
+Mateo: Agreed. Production imports keep the full normalization.
+
+Priya: Mateo, please update the demo config before Friday noon.
+
+Mateo: I will do that before Friday noon.
+
+Lena: And the open question is whether we need a faster normalizer after the demo.
+
+Priya: Capture that, but no decision on the long-term fix today.

tests/gold/question_simple/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+# question_simple
+
+Tests extraction of an explicit open question.
+
+The transcript also contains a non-task: Kai says he can ask finance but explicitly does not accept it as a task yet.
+
+Typical LLM mistakes:
+
+- Creating a todo for Kai despite his correction.
+- Missing that the group decides to leave the issue open.
+- Treating "support package" as enough information to answer the question.

tests/gold/question_simple/expected.json

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+{
+  "facts": [
+    {
+      "fact": "The vendor invoice came in this morning.",
+      "evidence": "Kai: The vendor invoice came in this morning."
+    },
+    {
+      "fact": "The invoice line item says support package.",
+      "evidence": "Kai: I don't know. The line item just says support package."
+    }
+  ],
+  "decisions": [
+    {
+      "decision": "The support-hours invoice issue will remain an open question for now.",
+      "evidence": "Ruth: Fine. Let's leave it as an open question for now."
+    }
+  ],
+  "todos": [],
+  "questions": [
+    {
+      "question": "Does the vendor invoice include the extra support hours from March?",
+      "evidence": "Ruth: Does it include the extra support hours from March?"
+    }
+  ],
+  "positions": [],
+  "technical": []
+}

tests/gold/question_simple/transcript.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+Kai: The vendor invoice came in this morning.
+
+Ruth: Does it include the extra support hours from March?
+
+Kai: I don't know. The line item just says support package.
+
+Ruth: Then that is still open.
+
+Kai: I can ask finance, but I am not taking that as a task yet.
+
+Ruth: Fine. Let's leave it as an open question for now.
+
+Kai: Understood.
+
+Ruth: Anything else on invoices?
+
+Kai: No.
+
+Ruth: Then next item.

tests/gold/technical_simple/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+# technical_simple
+
+Tests technical extraction with a corrected diagnosis.
+
+The transcript contrasts two possible causes: certificate expiry and runner configuration. The latter is confirmed as the cause.
+
+Typical LLM mistakes:
+
+- Reporting certificate expiry as the problem.
+- Creating a fix decision even though the group explicitly says no fix is decided.
+- Missing the distinction between fact and technical diagnosis.

tests/gold/technical_simple/expected.json

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+{
+  "facts": [
+    {
+      "fact": "The mobile build failed on the staging runner.",
+      "evidence": "Sofia: The mobile build failed again on the staging runner."
+    },
+    {
+      "fact": "The certificate is valid until October.",
+      "evidence": "Nils: The certificate itself is valid until October."
+    }
+  ],
+  "decisions": [],
+  "todos": [],
+  "questions": [
+    {
+      "question": "Is the mobile build failing with the same error as yesterday?",
+      "evidence": "Nils: Same error as yesterday?"
+    }
+  ],
+  "positions": [],
+  "technical": [
+    {
+      "subject": "iOS staging build",
+      "statement": "The iOS job fails during code signing because the runner uses the old keychain path.",
+      "evidence": "The iOS job now fails during code signing. The problem is that the runner uses the old keychain path."
+    },
+    {
+      "subject": "Failure classification",
+      "statement": "The failure is a runner configuration issue, not a certificate expiry issue.",
+      "evidence": "So it is a runner configuration issue, not a certificate expiry issue. Sofia: Exactly."
+    }
+  ]
+}

tests/gold/technical_simple/transcript.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+Sofia: The mobile build failed again on the staging runner.
+
+Nils: Same error as yesterday?
+
+Sofia: No, different. The iOS job now fails during code signing.
+
+Nils: The certificate itself is valid until October.
+
+Sofia: Right. The problem is that the runner uses the old keychain path.
+
+Nils: So it is a runner configuration issue, not a certificate expiry issue.
+
+Sofia: Exactly.
+
+Nils: We are not deciding the fix today.
+
+Sofia: Okay.
+
+Nils: Next item.

tests/gold/todo_negative/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+# todo_negative
+
+Tests that vague "someone should" language is not an action item.
+
+The transcript contains a real decision to keep the issue on the risk list, but no assigned task.
+
+Typical LLM mistakes:
+
+- Creating a todo with "someone" as owner.
+- Assigning Paula, Ravi, or Sam even though they explicitly do not take ownership.
+- Ignoring the explicit "no owner for now" correction.

tests/gold/todo_negative/expected.json

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+{
+  "facts": [
+    {
+      "fact": "The customer export takes longer than Paula expected.",
+      "evidence": "Paula: The customer export takes longer than I expected."
+    },
+    {
+      "fact": "There is no owner for the customer export issue for now.",
+      "evidence": "Paula: Right, no owner for now."
+    }
+  ],
+  "decisions": [
+    {
+      "decision": "The customer export issue will stay on the risk list for now.",
+      "evidence": "Sam: Then let's just keep it on the risk list. Paula: Right, no owner for now."
+    }
+  ],
+  "todos": [],
+  "questions": [],
+  "positions": [],
+  "technical": []
+}

tests/gold/todo_negative/transcript.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+Paula: The customer export takes longer than I expected.
+
+Ravi: Someone should probably look at it.
+
+Sam: Yes, maybe after the release freeze.
+
+Paula: I don't have capacity this week.
+
+Ravi: Same here.
+
+Sam: Then let's just keep it on the risk list.
+
+Paula: Right, no owner for now.
+
+Ravi: We can revisit it in planning.
+
+Sam: Okay.
+
+Paula: Next item.

tests/gold/todo_simple/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+# todo_simple
+
+Tests one clear action item with responsible person and deadline.
+
+The difficult part is not adding extra scope: Nina explicitly says she will not touch the layout.
+
+Typical LLM mistakes:
+
+- Adding a layout update as a task.
+- Dropping the deadline.
+- Turning Omar's request into the task evidence instead of Nina's commitment.

tests/gold/todo_simple/expected.json

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+{
+  "facts": [
+    {
+      "fact": "The beta signup page points to the old privacy note.",
+      "evidence": "Omar: The beta signup page still points to the old privacy note."
+    }
+  ],
+  "decisions": [],
+  "todos": [
+    {
+      "task": "Update the privacy link on the beta signup page.",
+      "responsible": "Nina",
+      "deadline": "Thursday noon",
+      "evidence": "Nina: Yes, I will update the privacy link by Thursday noon."
+    }
+  ],
+  "questions": [],
+  "positions": [],
+  "technical": []
+}

tests/gold/todo_simple/transcript.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+Omar: The beta signup page still points to the old privacy note.
+
+Nina: Yes, I saw that yesterday.
+
+Omar: Can you update the link before the partner demo?
+
+Nina: Yes, I will update the privacy link by Thursday noon.
+
+Omar: Great. Nothing else on that page from my side.
+
+Nina: I will only touch the link, not the layout.
+
+Omar: Fine.
+
+Nina: Then I have what I need.
+
+Omar: We can move on.
+
+Nina: Yes.

tests/test_extraction_protocol.py

@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ from pathlib import Path
 
 from src.meeting_lab.extraction.extract_chunks import (
     EXTRACTION_CATEGORIES,
+    build_prompt,
     extraction_path_for_chunk,
     normalize_current_schema,
     parse_json_response,
@@ -93,6 +94,14 @@ Final answer:
         self.assertEqual(parsed["facts"], ["final"])
         self.assertEqual(set(parsed), set(EXTRACTION_CATEGORIES))
 
+    def test_build_prompt_includes_common_and_decision_prompt_files(self) -> None:
+        prompt = build_prompt("transcript.txt", "Anna: Agreed.")
+
+        self.assertIn("Du extrahierst Informationen aus Meeting-Transkripten.", prompt)
+        self.assertIn("You extract decisions from meeting transcript text.", prompt)
+        self.assertIn("Extract each decision as one atomic commitment.", prompt)
+        self.assertIn("Anna: Agreed.", prompt)
+
     def test_build_protocol_groups_extraction_items(self) -> None:
         with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory() as directory:
             input_dir = Path(directory)

tests/test_gold_runner.py

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+import json
+import tempfile
+import unittest
+from pathlib import Path
+
+from scripts.run_gold_test import read_json_object, scenario_paths, validate_required_keys
+
+
+class GoldRunnerTests(unittest.TestCase):
+    def test_missing_transcript_is_reported(self) -> None:
+        with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory() as directory:
+            scenario = Path(directory)
+            (scenario / "expected.json").write_text("{}", encoding="utf-8")
+
+            with self.assertRaisesRegex(FileNotFoundError, "Missing transcript.txt"):
+                scenario_paths(scenario)
+
+    def test_missing_expected_is_reported(self) -> None:
+        with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory() as directory:
+            scenario = Path(directory)
+            (scenario / "transcript.txt").write_text("A: Hello.", encoding="utf-8")
+
+            with self.assertRaisesRegex(FileNotFoundError, "Missing expected.json"):
+                scenario_paths(scenario)
+
+    def test_invalid_expected_json_is_reported(self) -> None:
+        with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory() as directory:
+            path = Path(directory) / "expected.json"
+            path.write_text("{invalid", encoding="utf-8")
+
+            with self.assertRaisesRegex(ValueError, "Invalid JSON"):
+                read_json_object(path)
+
+    def test_missing_required_schema_keys_are_reported(self) -> None:
+        with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory() as directory:
+            path = Path(directory) / "expected.json"
+            data = {
+                "facts": [],
+                "decisions": [],
+                "todos": [],
+                "questions": [],
+                "positions": [],
+            }
+            path.write_text(json.dumps(data), encoding="utf-8")
+
+            with self.assertRaisesRegex(ValueError, "technical"):
+                validate_required_keys(read_json_object(path), path)
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    unittest.main()