admin
9446c6e0be
- document Entity Registry and Meeting Context V2 architecture - preserve meeting_context.yaml as the authoritative meeting-specific input - define immutable authoritative metadata across all pipeline stages - restrict Constraint Repair to deterministic structured-data operations - record BUG-003 root cause and deferred entity-verification resolution - document BUG-005 attendance-consistency design - add BUG-006 renderer faithfulness root-cause analysis - distinguish Engineering Readiness from Practical Usability - update the persistent regression bug tracker
55 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
55 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
# 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.
|