# Quality Readiness

Meeting Lab quality status should distinguish engineering readiness from
practical usability.

## Engineering Readiness

Status: NOT READY

The current end-to-end pipeline is not ready to replace the previous
extraction pipeline. The latest quality milestone records seven known
regression bugs, two documented root-cause investigations and a renderer
faithfulness failure where consolidated items are omitted or reclassified.

Engineering readiness requires at least:

- faithful rendering of consolidated decisions, action items and open questions
- no false responsibility attribution
- no participant-attendance contradictions against Meeting Context
- no unverified person/entity names entering final protocols unchecked
- regression tests or validation coverage for fixed bugs

## Practical Usability

Status: READY FOR MANUAL EDIT

The generated working protocol can still be useful as a draft when reviewed by
a human editor against the known meeting content. This status does not imply
engineering readiness and must not be used as evidence that the pipeline is
faithful or production-ready.

Practical usability means:

- the broad meeting structure is recognizable
- many relevant topics and process points are present
- manual correction is still required before the protocol can be trusted

Known manual correction areas include:

- false or over-strong responsibility attribution
- incorrect open questions
- synthetic or unverified names from transcript artifacts
- participant-attendance contradictions
- reversed or over-broad process meaning

## Current Benchmark Reference

Latest benchmark reviewed for this distinction:

- `samples/benchmarks/meeting_context_v1/e2e_current_20260803_151000/benchmark_report.md`

The benchmark report concludes `NOT READY` for engineering replacement. This
document adds the separate practical-usability classification for manual-edit
workflows only.